Duddempudi Sambasiva Rao Chowdary vs Ballampudi Raga Rao

Between: Duddempudi Sambasiva Rao Chowdary, S/o Late Balkotiah Aged about 68 years, Occ.

Engineet. and Social Worker, Rt/o 11-6-471111, Besides Bus Depot, Kukaipally, Rangareddy District AND ...PETIT|ONER Raga Rao, S/o B.Venkatratnam, Aged about 7'1 years, Occ, Medical Rr/o Flat No 5.

J.B Residency, Pragatinagar, Nizamabad - 503003 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1'196, 1197 & 1250 OF 2022 Ballampudi Practitioner ...RESPONDENT C R.P.No l 196 of 2022 : (Petition Under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia against the orders dated 14.03.2022 made in l.A.No.S of 2020 in O.S.No.157 of 2016 on the fite of the Court of the lAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated.

1410312022 passed in l.A.No.

5 of 2020 in O.S.No.

157 of 2016, on the file of First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.8., Nagar.

C.R.P.No.1 197 of 2O22 : (Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the orders dated 14.O3.2O22 made in E.A-No.118 of 2019 in E.P.No,442 of 2019 in O.S.No.157 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.) lA NO: 1 OF 2022 lN C.R.P.NO.1196 OF 2022 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 lN C .R.P.NO.1197 0F 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to sLrspend the order dated.

14103/2022 passed in E.A.No.118 of 2019 in E P'No 442 of 2019 in O.S.No.157 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga R,-ddy District at L.8., Nagar. cR.

P.No. cR.

P.No.1250 ol 2022 : (Petition Under Article 227 of lhe constitution of lndia against the orders dated 14.O3.2O22 made in E.A.No.119 of 2019 in E.P.No.442 of 2019 in O S No 157 o{ 2016 on the file of the court of the I Additional senior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Dlstrict at L.B.Nagar.) llr NO: 1 OF 2022lN C.R.P.

No.1250 0F 2022 Petition under Seclion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in tl'e affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated.

1410312022 passed in E.A-No' 119 of 2019 in 8.p.No.442 0f 2019 in o.S.No.

157 0f 2016, on the file of I Additional Senior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.8., Nagar.

Counsel for the Petitioner in all C.R.Ps : SRl.

M RAMAKANTH Counsel for the Respondent in all C.R'Ps: SRI Y.S.

YELLA NAND GUPTA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER F[cm' AIi S.J C R P Nos 1196.

I197 & l2t0 o1 2022 HON'BLE SITI JUST'ICE ABIIINANI) KTJMAII.

SHAVILI C.R.P.Nos.l196 ll97 & 1250 ot2072 All these Civit Revision Petitions are being disposed olby way olthis Common Order as the issue involved in all these Revision Petitions is one and the same.

2.

Heard Sri M.Ramakanth, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.S.

Yelta Nand Guptha, leamed counsel lor !he respondent.

3.

1t has been contended by the petitioner that he has entered into an unregistered sale deed with the respondent on 20-01-2009 in respect olsuit schedule property and the petitioner has been requesting the defendant/respondent herein to execute the registered sale deed in his lavour but the respondent has not honoured the request of the petitioner.

In those set of circumstances, the petitioner has filed O.S.No.

157 of 2016 beiore the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and the said suit was decreed ex parte on I l-12-2018 CONIIMON ORDER: and the petirioner has also filed 8.p.No.442 of 2019 seeking execution of the decree.

When the E.p. n the E.p. was being adjudicated, the respondent had filed I.A.No.S of 2020 to condone the delay of 295 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit and also filed E.A.No.

I 19 of 2019 in 8.P.No.442 ol 2019 to set aside the ex parte orders passed in E.P.No.442 of 20t9 in O.S.No.

157 of 2016 dt.09_09_2019 and also filed E.A.No. ll8 of 2019 in E.p.No.442 of 2019 in O.S.No.

157 of 20 l6 dt.09-09-2019 ro stay of execution of all proceedings in the said E.P.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the Court below without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner had allowed all the above petitions..

4 .

Leamed counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the person, who has filed the above petitions, is not the original defendant and is trying to impersonate the original defendant, to enter into the picture and to stall the proceedings by denying the fruits of the suit decree granted in favour of the petitioner.

Theretbre, he had contended that appropriate orders be Al,S..l CRPNosI196. ll97& lzlooi 021 J passed in the Revision Petitions by setting aside all the impugned 5.

Learned counsel for the respondent had contended that he is the original owner and he has not entered into any sale deed with the petitioner and the petitioner has fumished incorect address of the respondent in the suit and consequently, the respondent could not receive the summons and could not contest the suit and accordingly he filed the present petitions before the Court below and the Court below has rightly allowed he said petitions in favour of the respondent.

Therefore, there are no merits and all the Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

6.

Having regard to the rival submissions made by the parties, this Courl is of the considered view that since the petitioner himself is seriously disputing about the person, who is the delendant in the suit and when petitioner is disputing the respondent then it see hen it seems more important to hear all the parties at stake and the Court below is directed to frame the issue as to aside the ex parte orders is the very same person, who had entered AKS.J CRPNosl196. ll97 & l2t0 of2022 ( orders ol the Court below dt.I4-03 -2022 in the above petitions. whether the person, who has filed the petitions seeking to set 4 AKS.] C R PNos 1196, I197 & l250of?022 into unregistered sale deed with the petitioner, or not, has to be adjudicated by the Coun below after permitting both the parlies to adduce their respective evidence and the Court belorv is directed to pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.3 l3 of 2022 in O.S.No.

1 57 of 2016, filed by the respondent herein to set aside the ex parte order dt.11-12-2018 in O.S.No.

157 of 2016, after giving opportunity to all the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six months from today.

7.

With these observations, all the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of.

No costs.

6 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.B.SAWAVATHI - DEPUTY REGISTRAR srcrrdr.r oFFlcER To, 1 2 J 4 5 The IAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar One CC to Sri lvl.Ramakanth ,Advocate (OPUC) One CC to Sri Y.S.Yella Nand Gupta ,Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies One Spare Copy ks \ \X- HIGH COURT DATED:29 tl7t2O2Z tr o It *D ESP CFQ $tL '{. , 6i l.

COMMON ORDER CRP.No.lf 96,1197 AND 1250 of 2022 Disposing of the C.R.ps Vlfithout costs. \y"i I 1 ,@*s," ry' I