Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Kurnool Swarnakara Shoping Complex ... vs S.V.Suresh Achari on 7 August, 2024
APHC010075112024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1293. 1304 & 1320/2024
Between:
The Kurnool Swarnakara Shopping Complex Welfare ...PETITIONER(S)
Society and Others
AND
S V Suresh Achari and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
Sri. V RAGHU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
Sri VARUN BYREDDY
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.1293, 1304 & 1320 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
All these three revisions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are preferred by the defendants challenging the docket order, dated 12.05.2023, allowing I.A.Nos.90, 91 & 92 of 2023 in O.S.No.103 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool.
a. C.R.P.No.1320 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.90 of 2023; C.R.P.No.1293 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.91 of 2023; and C.R.P.No.1304 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.92 of 2023.
b. I.A.No.90 of 2023 is filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to recall PW1, I.A.No.91 of 2023 is filed under Section 151 CPC to reopen the suit for the purpose of marking the document; and I.A.No.92 of 2023 is filed Order VII Rule 14 and Section 151 CPC to grant leave for filing the schedule document by condoning the delay.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The facts leading to filing of these revision petitions, in brief, is as follows:
3
BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1293, 1304 & 1320 of 2024 a. The plaintiffs are the members of M/s. Kurnool Pattana Swarnakara Sangham, Kurnool, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, on 15.11.1981, formed for the welfare of its members/goldsmiths. On 08.12.1994, the government of Andhra Pradesh granted Ac.0.49 cents of land in Sy.No.35/5C- A10-A2B of Kurnool Town on payment of the market value at the rate of Rs.1600/- per square yard for construction of shopping complex by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1233 and in pursuance of the said G.O., Tahsildar, Kurnool, delivered possession of the site to the society on 10.11.1995. The society constructed shopping complex consisting of 197 shops. In the year 2001, some of the members of society filed representative suit O.S.No.160 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, against the society and it's President for declaration that continuation of the then office bearers, President and Secretary of the Society as illegal. In the said suit, I.A.No.439 of 2001 was filed for grant of injunction. While dismissing the said petition on 31.01.2003, the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, held the election of President, Secretary and Treasurer conducted on 28.8.2002 as illegal as it was against the byelaws. On behalf of the 1st defendant, its representatives signed sale deeds in favour of defendants 2 to 9. 4
BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1293, 1304 & 1320 of 2024 b. Since the sale deeds in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 9 came into existence effecting the plaint schedule properties, the suit is filed seeking the following reliefs:
a. For declaration of title of M/s. Kurnool Pattana Swarnakara (society) over plaint schedule property duly nullifying the alienations made by defendants No.2 to 5 in the name of defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 9. b. For delivery of possession of item No.1 to 5 and 16 of plaint schedule property to M/s. Kurnool Pattana Swarnakara Sangham, Kurnool;
c. Grant damages of Rs.4,20,000/- in favour of plaintiffs and as against defendant no.1 to 9 for occupying item No.1 to 5 and 16 of plaint schedule property;
d. Consequential injunction restraining the defendants no.1 to 9 from interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by M/s. Kurnool Pattana Swarnakara Sangham, Kurnool;
e. grant future mesne profits of item no.1 to 5 and 16 of plaint schedule property till they are delivered to M/s. Kurnool Patanaka Swarnakara Sangham, Kurnool."
4. During the course of arguments of the 1st defendant, he submitted the judgment of apex Court with regard to requirement of permission of the Court which appointed the receivers, when the suit is filed against the receivers. As per the said decision, permission can be obtained at any time before termination of the suit, which is filed against the receivers. Hence, the 1 st plaintiff filed 5 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1293, 1304 & 1320 of 2024 application seeking permission of the District Judge, Kurnool, who has appointed the receivers in O.P.No.43 of 2003 and it was granted in I.A.No.327 of 2023. In the aforesaid backdrop, all these applications have been filed by the plaintiffs to reopen the suit for the purpose of adducing further evidence, to recall PW1 and to grant leave to file the schedule document by condoning the delay.
5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court passed the impugned docket order, dated 12.05.2023, which reads as follows:
" Heard and perused the record. The petitioners have shown sufficient ground to reopen the suit, to receive the certified copies of petition, affidavit and order, dated 23.03.2023 in I.A.No.327/2023 in O.P.No.43 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge's Court, Kurnool and to recall PW1 for making of the above documents. Moreover, the respondents have reported no counter and no objection to allow the petition.
Hence, in the interest of justice, this petition is allowed as prayed for."
6. Hence, the petitioners/defendants filed these revision petitions.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the document sought to be received has no relevance, yet, the petition was allowed, whereas similar petition filed by the defendants was not allowed by the trial Court. 6
BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1293, 1304 & 1320 of 2024
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial Court has given valid reason for allowing the application and all the evidence required shall be allowed to be placed on file for proper adjudication of the dispute.
9. After perusal of the record and on considering the reasons stated by the petitioners and appreciated by the trial Court, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 07-08-2024 RAR