Telangana High Court
Sri Kummari Pochaiah vs Smt. Pilli Padma on 21 August, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1503 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.08.2023 passed in CMA No.18 of 2021 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.
(For sake of convenience, the petitioner herein is referred to as 'defendant' and respondent as 'plaintiff ') FACTS:-
3. Plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S.No.171 of 2021 against the defendant seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property i.e. land admeasuring Ac.0.35 ½ guntas in Sy.No.388/A situated Vedira Village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District (for short, 'subject property') contending as follows:-
i. Originally, in the revenue records, the entries were made in the name of Dulimitta Lachi Reddy s/o Rajaiah in respect of the subject property. The said Dulimitta Lachi Reddy, sold the 2 subject property to one Bejjanki Yellaiah under a registered sale deed bearing document No.337 of 1982 dated 02.06.1982. The said Bejjanki Yellaiah sold the subject property to one Thodeti Bapu s/o Ashaiah, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.3524 of 2009, dated 04.11.2009. The said Thodeti Bapu, in turn, sold the subject property to Mohammed Abdul Nayeem under a registered sale deed bearing document No.3335 of 2011 dated 25.07.2011. The said Mohammed Abdul Nayeem sold the subject property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1281 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property.
ii. While so, when the defendant tried to interfere with her possession over the subject property lastly on 02.02.2021, she filed the aforesaid suit against the defendant for perpetual injunction restraining him from interfering with her possession over the subject property.
iii. Plaintiff further contended that the defendant herein created registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.918 of 3 2003, dated 31.10.2003 from Kummari Santosh Kumar, his brother's son.
iv. The said gift settlement deed was not entered in the revenue record and he has not handed over the possession of the same to the defendant.
v. When the defendant came to know that the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property, he got executed a registered dispute relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff bearing document No.6613 of 2016 dated 23.06.2016 by receiving an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and thus, the defendant relinquished his rights over the subject property stating that he will never dispute at any time and cancel the said registered gift settlement deed and that the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property since long time.
vi. The defendant has not entered into the suit land. As such his title and rights were relinquished over the suit schedule property.
vii. The defendant filed written statement contending that one Kummari Santhosh Kumar, is the original owner and possessor of the subject property.
4viii. In fact, subject property was purchased by father of the said Kummari Santhosh Kumar, in the name of Kummari Santhosh Kumar from Bejjanki Yellaiah under a simple sale deed long back.
ix. Kummari Santhosh Kumar, filed a suit O.S.No.1037 of 1990 for declaration of title and possession against the said Bejjanki Yellaiah, who in turn filed written statement admitting the title and possession of said Kummari Santhosh Kumar, and basing on the said admission in the said written statement, the suit was decreed on 19.09.1990. The name of Kumamri Santhosh Kumar, was entered in the revenue records, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued. Since then, said Kummari Santhosh Kumar, is in possession of the subject property. x. Bejjanki Yellaiah in collusion with Thodeti Babu, created a fake and fictitious sale deed bearing document No.3524 of 2009, dated 04.11.2009 in respect of the subject property. The said Thodeti Babu tried to enter his name in the revenue record. Therefore, Bejjanki Yellaiah filed appeal vide No.D/4000/2012 appeal before RDO, Karimnagar against Kummari Santhosh Kumar and Bejjanki Yellaiah who admitted title and possession 5 of said Kummari Santhosh Kumar, and filed a compromise petition. Thereafter, the RDO Karimnagar has passed an order dated 06.07.2015.
xi. The defendant being junior paternal uncle of Kummari Santhosh Kumar, looking after the affairs of the subject property and carrying on the agricultural operations on behalf of Kummari Santhosh Kumar.
xii. In view of the family affairs, the said Kummari Santhosh Kumar, executed a registered gift deed bearing document No.1224/2003, dated 31.10.2003 in favour of the defendant in respect of the subject property. The same was not acted upon and subsequently, the said gift deed was not accepted by the defendant. Therefore, the said Kummari Santhosh Kumar, is the title holder and in possession and enjoyment of the subject property.
xiii. The plaintiff along with neighbours tried to grab the subject property by creating false and fake document bearing No.6613/2016 dated 23.06.2016. Therefore, the defendant has lodged a complaint with Police, Ramadugu, who in turn registered the same as a case in Cr.No.85/2020 and on 6 completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against them. The same was taken on file as S.C.No.2014/2021 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Thus, the plaintiff on the basis of false and fictitious documents claiming possession of the subject property and trying to grab the same. In the said process, he has filed the present suit.
xiv. Plaintiff has filed a petition vide I.A.No.87/2021 in O.S.No.171/2021 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction.
xv. The defendant filed counter in I.A.No.87 of 2021 opposing the averments made in the said petition.
xvi. Vide order dated 13.07.2021, learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, dismissed the said application relying on the decree and judgment in O.S.No.1037 of 1990, MRI report stating that the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property and that the defendant executed a dispute relinquishment deed bearing document No.6613 of 2016, dated 23.06.2016, compromise appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, 7 Karimnagar and proceedings vide Proc.No.B/4767 of 2016 dated 13.12.2016 of Tahsildar, Ramadugu Mandal, xvii. Trial Court further held that the plaintiff did not show that the said Kummari Suresh Kumar, alienated or transferred the property to Thodeti Babu but she filed a registered sale deed bearing document No.3524 of 2009 dated 04.11.2009 executed by Bejjanki Yellaiah in favour of Thodeti Babu. Thus, trial Court relied on the aforesaid decree and judgment and also order passed by the RDO and etc., The trial Court also placed reliance on the pendency of the aforesaid crime No.85/2020. The trial Court held that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the subject property. xviii. The trial Court further held that the defendant claiming right over the subject property through Mohammad Abdul Nayeem under Doc.No.1081 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015, the said Mohd. Abdul Nayeem got it from Thodeti Babu and Thodeti Babu got it from Bejjanki Yellaiah. In such case, the defendant cannot execute a dispute relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff, more particularly, when his name was not incorporated in revenue records by virtue of gift deed, executed by Kummari 8 Santhosh Kumar, and further held that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff preferred an appeal vide CMA No.18 of 2021. Vide judgment dated 11.08.2023, learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order dated 13.07.2021 in I.A.No.87 of 2021 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge.
5. The appellate Court held that the contention of the defendant that Ex.P.8 registered relinquishment deed bearing document No.6613/2016 dated 23.06.2016 was created one is a triable issue. The decree and judgment dated 19.09.1990 in O.S.No.1037 of 1990 and order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the RDO, Karimnagar vide Appeal No.D/4000/2012 were passed recording the compromise. The appellate Court also observed that the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue record, latest pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for ad-interim injunction.
6. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/defendant filed the present revision contending that the plaintiff approached the trial 9 Court by suppression of material facts and with unclean hands. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief of injunction. The plaintiff has to establish prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. In the present case, the plaintiff failed to establish the same. Thus, the trial Court dismissed the said application filed by the plaintiff and it is a reasoned order. The appellate Court set aside the same with erroneous findings. Therefore, the order dated 11.08.2023 in C.M.A.No.18 of 2021 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is liable to be set aside. In support of his case, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
1. Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary vs. Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar 1
2. National Airport Authority vs. Vijaydutt 2
3. Shaik Ameer Johni vs. Shaik John Ahmed 3
4. Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India 4
5. Ammani vs. The Tiruchengode Municipality 5
6. D.Suguna vs. Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Temple 6
7. Mandadi Ranganna vs. T.Ramachandra 7 1 AIR 1983 SC 742 2 AIR 1990 MP 326 3 1991 (2) ALT449 4 AIR 1992 Delhi 197 5 AIR 2004 Mad 333 6 2004 (4) ALT 407 7 AIR 2008 SC 2291 10
7. Whereas, Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff would contend that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff seeking ad-interim injunction. The trial Court cannot give findings with regard to the title while deciding an interlocutory application. On consideration of the said aspects only, the appellate Court rightly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff by setting aside the order dated 13.07.2021 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.81/2021. It is a reasoned order.
8. The aforesaid facts would reveal that according to the plaintiff originally, the subject land belongs to Dulimitta Lachi Reddy, who in turn sold the subject property to Bejjanki Yellaiah under Ex.P.4- registered sale deed bearing document No. 337 of 1982 dated 02.06.1982. The said Bejjanki Yellaiah sold the subject property in favour of Thodeti Babu under Ex.P.5-registered sale deed bearing document No. 3524/2009 dated 04.11.2009. The said Thodeti Babu sold the subject property in favour of Mohd.Abudul Nayeem under Ex.P.6-registered sale deed bearing document No.3325 of 2011 dated 21.11.2011. The said Mohd. Abdul Nayeem sold the subject property to the defendant under Ex.P.7- registered sale deed bearing document No.1281 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015.11
9. It is also relevant to note that the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records. Exs.P.10 and P.11- old pattadar passbooks and Ex.P.12 latest passbook - cum - title deed were issued in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P.13 is a copy of I-B Namuna issued in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also filed Ex.P.1 to P.3-
pahani patrikas for the years 1974-75, 1978-79 and 1980-81 to show that Dulimitta Lachi Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. Ex.P.14 is the latest pahani for the year 2017 wherein the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as pattadar and possessor of the subject property. Thus, by filing Ex.P.1 to P.3, the plaintiff proved that said Dulimitta Lachi Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land as on the date of execution of Ex.P.4 sale deed bearing document No.337/82, dated 02.06.1982 in favour of Bejjanki Yellaiah. The plaintiff has also proved prima facie title and possession by producing Exs.P.5, P.6 and P.7 registered sale deeds and Exs.P.10 to 12- passbooks and title deed.
10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on coming to know that the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property, the defendant has executed Ex.P.8-registered relinquishment deed bearing document No.6613/2016 dated 23.06.2016 in favour of the plaintiff by receiving 12 an amount of one lakh and in the said deed, the defendant categorically admitted that he is relinquishing all his rights over the subject property in favour of the plaintiff. But the defendant is disputing the said document and according to him, it is a created document. Whether it is created document or whether the defendant received the said amount of one lakh rupees from the plaintiff or not is a triable issue and the same will be decided after conducting full- fledged trial. The same cannot be considered while deciding an interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
11. Even according to the defendant, he is the junior paternal uncle of Kummari Suresh Kumar and defendant used to look after the affairs of the subject property by carrying on agricultural operations. The registered gift deed vide document No.1224/2003 dated 31.10.2003 executed by Kummari Santhosh Kumar, in favour of the defendant did not act upon, the same was not accepted by the defendant. Therefore, according to the defendant, the said Kumamri Suresh Kumar was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. Again the said facts are triable issues and the same can be considered on completion of full fledged trial. The same cannot be 13 considered at interlocutory stage. Thus, according to the defendant, Kummari Santhosh Kumar, is defendant's brother's son who is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. His contention that he is looking after the affairs of the subject property cannot be considered at this stage and it can be considered after concluding full fledged trial.
12, Ex.R.3-decree and judgment in O.S.No.1037 of 1990 and Ex.R.4 order dated 06.07.2015 of the RDO, Karimnagar, in Appeal No.D/4000/2012 were passed on compromise and on considering the written statement and admission of claim by Bejjanki Yellaiah in favour of Kummari Santhosh Kumar. Both the said orders are prior to Ex.P.8 registered relinquishment deed.
13. Perusal of the Ex.P.8 registered relinquishment deed would reveal that the defendant himself specifically stated about gift settlement deed bearing document No.1223/2003, registered sale deed bearing document No.1281/2015 dated 30.04.2015 executed by Mohd. Abdul Nayeem in favour of the plaintiff. He has also referred about the pendency of the cases and the advise given by elders and well wishers to settle the same. He has also admitted about receiving of the amount of one lakh rupees and relinquishment of his rights over the 14 suit schedule property. He has also further admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property from the beginning and he never in possession of the subject property. There are two witnesses to the said document. Whether the defendant executed the said relinquishment deed or not is again a triable issue which can be decided after concluding full fledged trial. While deciding an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the Court has to consider triple point formula i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. At the interlocutory stage, the Courts shall not give any finding with regard to the reliability and genuinity of any document. Considering the documents filed by the parties, the Court has to decide the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The above said suit is for injunction simplicitor. Therefore, the Court has to consider prima facie title of the plaintiff and possession over the suit schedule property.
14. As discussed supra, the plaintiff is claiming right over the subject property basing on Ex.P.7 registered sale deed. The plaintiff has also filed Ex.P.1 to P.6 documents to show that she is in possession of the subject property. Her name was also mutated in revenue records and in proof of the same, she has filed Exs.P.13-1B 15 Namuna certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Ramadugu. She has also filed Ex.P.9 mutation proceedings No.B/4716/2016 dated 13.06.2016 isisued by Tahsildar, Ramadugu, Ex.P.10 and P.11 are old pattadar passbooks and title deed, Ex.P.12 latest pattadar passbook and title deed.
15. Thus, the plaintiff proved her prima facie title and possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Without considering the said aspects, the learned trial Court, relying on Ex.R.3 judgment and decree in O.S.No.1037 of 1990, Ex.R.4 copy of the order dated 06.07.2015 of the RDO, Karimnagar in Appeal No. D/4000/2002, dismissed I.A.No.87 of 2021. As discussed supra, both are on compromise. In both the cases, Bejjanki Yellaiah admitted the claim of Kummari Santhosh Kumar. Thereafter, he has executed Ex.P.8-relinquishment deed bearing document No.6613/2016 dated 23.06.2016. Therefore, the said aspects have to be considered on conducting full-fledged trial. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned appellate Court set aside the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.87 of 2021 in O.S.No.171 of 2021, dated 30.07.2021.
16
16. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar vs Prahlad Singh8 and Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs Kartick Das9, Bacharaj Singhvi vs. Hastimal Kothari10 and E.Managamma vs. A.Muniswamy Naidu 11 while dealing with an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. seeking ad interim injunction held that the Courts have to see triple point formula i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
17. With regard to the scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in M/S. Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (Private) Ltd 12 wherein it was held that the exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the 8 AIR 1993 SC 276, 9 1994 (4) SCC 225 10 1980 (2)ALT 472 11 AIR 1983 AP 128 DB 12 2001 (8) SCC 97 17 jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.
18. In Waryam Singh vs. Amarnath13, Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico PTG Co.Ltd vs. Ram Tahel Ramnand 14 and Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibat R.Tarta 15 the Apex Court held that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order tokeep 13 (1954) 1 SCC 51= 1954 SCC OnLine SC 13 14 (1972) 1 SCC 898 15 (1975) 1 SCC 858 18 the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.
19. As discussed supra, in the present case, the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid documents including latest pattadar passbooks and title deed to show her possession over the property. Without considering the said aspects, learned trial Court dismissed I.A. No.87 of 2021 filed by the respondent herein relying on Ex.R.4-Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.1037 of 1990 and Ex.R.4 copy of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer without considering the fact that in both the cases Bejjanki Yellaiah admitted the Kummari Santhosh Kumar, claim. The trial Court failed to consider Ex.P.8 relinquishment deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff by receiving an amount of rupees one lakh. Trial Court has also failed to consider the contention of the defendant that whether he has executed the relinquishment deed or not is triable issue and the same can be considered after full-fledged trial. It cannot be considered while deciding interlocutory application. Thus, the finding of the trial Court is perverse and the same was considered by the appellate Court vide impugned order. Therefore, there is jurisdictional error which can 19 be corrected by this Court by invoking its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Gangubai Babiya Chaudhary (supra) wherein it was held that when an interim injunction is sought, the Court may have to examine whether the party seeking the assistance of the Court, was at any time in lawful possession of the property and if it is so established, one would prima facie ask the other side contesting the suit to show how the plaintiffs were dispossessed.
21. As discussed supra, in the present case, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid documents including latest passbooks and title deeds to show her possession.
22. In National Airport Authority (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) held that the relief of temporary injunction is an equitable one and is in the domain of the Court's judicial discretion. Therefore, even where the three well known concurrent conditions (Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury) requisite for grant of the relief exist, the Court, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in exercising its 20 discretion judicially, may still refuse the relief as where there has been delay and the party applying for the relief has not come with clean hands.
23. As discussed supra, whether the plaintiff approached the Court with clean hands or not, is a triable issue and it can be considered by the trial Court after full-fledged trial, but not at interlocutory stage.
24. In Shaik Ameer Johni (supra), the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that it is for the plaintiff to establish prima face that they were in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit. The Court cannot depend upon the weakness in the case of the defendant and because the defendant did not establish his case of alleged tenancy, it cannot come to the conclusion that the plaintiff's case must be true.
25. But in the present case, the plaintiff established her prima facie title and possession over the suit schedule property.
26. In Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. (supra), the Delhi High Court held that the suppression of material fact by itself is a sufficient ground to decline the discretionary relief of injunction. A party seeking discretionary relief has to approach the court with clean hands 21 and is required to disclose all material facts which may, one way or the other, affect the decision. A person deliberately concealing material facts from court is not entitled to any discretionary relief. The court can refuse to hear such person on merits. A person seeking relief of injunction is required to make honest disclosure of all relevant statements of facts otherwise it would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
27. As discussed supra, the plaintiff has filed all the aforesaid documents including Ex.P.1 pahani copy for the year 1974-75. The suppression of fact by the plaintiff as pointed by the defendant is a matter of trial and the trial Court has to consider the same after concluding full-fledged trial but not at interlocutory stage.
28. In Ammani (supra), the Madras High Court held that an injunction cannot be granted when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to assistance of the Court.
29. In the present case, the conduct of the parties i.e. whether Ex.R.8-relinquishment deed is executed by the defendant or not can be considered after concluding full-fledged trial, but not at interlocutory stage.
22
30. In D.Suguna (supra), the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that ordinarily, a person in possession of the property is entitled for grant of temporary injunction. However, it is important that such possession must not be unlawful. If the possession is found to be unlawful, it cannot be protected by way of temporary injunction.
31. Facts of the present case are different to that of the above case. In the present case, the plaintiff filed aforesaid documents including latest passbooks and title deeds to show that she is in possession of the subject property.
32. In Mandadi Ranganna (supra), the Apex Court held that a person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction.
33. In the present case, according to the plaintiff, the defendant tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property lastly on 02.02.2021 and therefore, the facts of the said case are slightly different to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the present case. 23
34. As discussed supra, in the present case, the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC relying only on Exs.R.4 and R.8 and without considering the fact that whether the defendant executed Ex.R.8- relinquishment deed by receiving an amount of one lakh rupees or not is a triable issue. On the other hand, the learned Appellate Court on consideration of the documents filed by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, set aside the order passed by the trial Court. There is no error in the order passed by the appellate Court. Therefore, the order dated 13.07.2021 passed in I.A.No.87 of 2021 in O.S.No.171 of 2021 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, is set aside. The petitioner herein/defendant and her men and agents are hereby restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, till disposal of the suit O.S.No.171 of 2021.
35. In the light of the above discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 11.08.2023 passed in CMA No.18 of 2021 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, I.A.No.87 of 2021 in O.S.No.171 of 2021 is allowed granting temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his men and 24 agents etc, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, till disposal of the suit in O.S.No.171 of 2021.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Dated:21.08.2024 Vvr