The High Court · 2025

tvlitya Naik, S/o- Revya Naik, Aged about 60 years, Occu. Agriculture R/o. Kotalagudem Village, Vikarabad Arlandal, Ranga Reddy District (presenfly Vikarabad Dist.) Raghavan, S/o. tt/itya Naik, Aged about 33 years, Occu. Agriculture R/o. Kotalagudem Village, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (presenfly Vikarabad Dist.) Ranlith, S/o. Mitya Naik, Aged about 30 years, Occu. Agriculture R/o. Kotalagudem Village, Vikarabad tVIandal, Ranga Reddy District (presenfly Vikarabad Dist.) ...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants lA NO: 'f OF 2025 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rray be pleased to gjrant in.junction restraining the Respondents herein jnd their agents, servants and henchman from interfering with the peaceful possession enjoyment in respect of suit schedule property i.e. land in Sy. No.237lAA/2, admeasuring Ac.3-39 Gts. situated at Siddulur paiga (Village), \likarabad (Mandal), Vikarabad (District) with the following boundaries: East: Land of Rathna Naik West: Land of Ramdas North: Land of Rangaiah South: Road pending disposal of the CRP No. 12024, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner; SRl. N. PRAVEEN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI R. ANURAG The Court made the following ORDER: ,") HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPJ'KA RE\IISION PEf,ITIONNo.282 oF 2021I OR DER: Heard Sri N. Praveen Reddy' learned ':ounsel petitioner and Sri R Anurag' learned counsel for Res condents I to 3. This Revision is filed assailing the Dc cket Order 2. d,ated 22.1O.2O24 passed by the Principal Junior Ci''il Judge at Vikarabad in O.S.No'342 of 2O06 whereby and wher eunder the trial Court dismissed the main suit i e' O S'No'342 o1 2006'

3. Initially, Respondent No' 1 ftled O'S'No ! 39 of 2006 onthelrleofthePrincipalJuniorCivilJudge,;Courtat Vikarabad Seekin g perpetual injunction, restraininl3 petitioner herein from interfering with peaceful possession an< enjoyment of land to an extent of Acs'3-39 guntas in Survey No 237 IAA/2' situated at Siddulur Paiga Village, Vikarabad MaI Ldal' Ranga Reddy District- Petitioner who was arrayed as defenciant entered appearance in the above suit and also {-rled written I tatement in October, 2OO6. While the said suit is pending for adjudication' petitioner knowing fully-well that lis in respect of su rject land is already pending, had chosen to hle O'S'No'342 of 2006 in I \ &KffiC ,,..r,, 2 \\ November, 2006 beforc the very same court with the very same relief of seeking lnlunctlon ln respect of the subject land by arraying the respondents herein as defendants. In the said suit, he also obtained temporary injunction order dated 22.17.2006 in I.A.No.720 of 2006-

4. It is pertinent to note here that though petitioner had already l-rled written statement in O.S.No.339 of 2006, he suppressed the said fact in the subsequent suit i.e. O.S.No.342 of 2006 and the averments in the plaint also does not refer to the pendency of earlier suit. Be that as it may, in 2018, petitioner Iiled I.A.No.73 of 2Ol8 in O.S.No.342 of 2OO6 under Section 1O read with Section 15i CPC seeking stay of trial of O.S.No.342 of 2006. Considering the fact that both the suits are hled for the ."ii.f of perpetual injunction in respect of the subject land with same boundaries and also between the same parties, as such, finality of the former suit i.e. O.S.No. 339 of 2O06 would operate as res judicafa to O.S.No.3 42 of 2006, Lhe trial Court granted stay uide order dated 74.02.2022 in view of the provision i.e. Section 1O of CPC as it is mandatory in nature. It is relevant to note that the said order attained finalily and petitioner is well aware of the fact that the subsequent suit i.e., I ----=------- -') O.S.No.342 of 2006 was stayed in view of the fact th rt it would operate as res judicata once the suit in O S'No'339 of 2006 is finally decided by the trial Court'

5. In the meantime, the trial Court co educted a detailedtrialofsuitino.S.No.3ggof2006arrdpasserljudgment anddecreedated22.lo.2o24grantingperpetualinjunction restraining petitioner and his agent, henchmen from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subje:t land' In viewofthesaiddecree,thetrialcourthasrightlldismissed O.S.No.342 of 2006 by the docket order dated 22 'l) '2024 'Tl:,e said order does not require any interference sinct the same satisltes the conditions enumerated for res judicata' The main ground on which the pr:sent Civil

6. Revision Petition preferred is that no notice was 5'iven before passing the docket order dated 22'IO'2O24 in O il'No'342 of 2006 and without allowing the parties to adduce evjdence The said contentions of Revisions petitioners have to be rejected on two counts. Firstly, petitioner himseif liled I'A'No-7i' of 2018 in 7. O.S.No.342 of 20Cl6 and obtained stay in subsequ:nt suit i e' O.S.No.342 of 20O6 in view of pendency of earlier suit i'e' 4 I O.S.No.339 of 2006. And in the earlier suit i.e. O.S.No.339 of 2006, elaborate evidence has been adduced by both the parties and documents on behalf of petitioner (defendant in O.S.No.339 of 2006) have also been marked as Exs.B- 1 to B-8 and after considering the entire material on record, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of Respondent No. l(plaintiff in O.S.No.339 of 2O06) herein. .]h-grefore the question of allowing petitioner to adduce evidence once again before the same Court in respect of the same relief does not arise, as such the contention of petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition about not giving opportunily to adduce evidence in O.S.No.342 ol 2006 does not have legs to stand, hence, the said contention has to be negated. Secondly, the contention of petilioner that no notice was given to him before passing the impugned docket order also does stand in the eye of law for the reason that he is very much aware about the judgment and decree in O.S.No.339 ol 2006 dated 22.10.2006 and as a natural corollary in view of the principle of res judicota the subsequent suit O.S.No.342 of 2006 has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court.

8. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the view that the order d,ated 22.10.2O24 passed in O.S.No.342 of f - 20Ci6 or the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Vikarabad does not require any interference- g . Accordingly, the Civil Revision ['etition is dismissed. No costs.

10. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applicati( ns, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// :iiD/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR /\D {ecrtoru oFFtcER U I To, The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, Vikarabad District' One CC to SRl. N. PRAVEEN REDDY Advocate [OPU(:] One CC to SRl. R. ANURAG Advocate [OPUC] 1 2

3. Two CD Copies

4. Kuligh .:!* 4'!,'*.," -.....--@--.!i.'''?-a<_. - ,P1 _.,"'a t,$t /. o'' :l r4r6 / .lj 1t; rrN 208 (n \' I Di5;:49"\ HIGH COURT DATED:28/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.282 of 2025 I DISN4ISSING TI{E CIVIL ITEVISII)N PETITION WITHOI]'[ COSTS 6 nlr.leK