Mr. Surender Bantia Alias Premraj ... vs K.N. Murthy And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5509 Tel

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                       AND
       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

        CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.48 of 2022
                     Date:31.10.2022

Between:


Mr Surender Bantia alias Premraj Surendar Bantia
S/o G P Bantia aged 58 years occ Business R/o 207
Sikh Road Secunderabad.


                                         .....Petitioner

     And


K N Murthy S/o Satyanarayana Aged 54 years
Occ Business R/o Plot No 9 H No 450/9
Jayabheri Enclave Gachibowli Hyderabad
and others.

                                        .....Respondents

The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.48 of 2022

ORDER : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

Heard learned counsel Smt. B.Namrata Reddy for

petitioner and learned counsel Smt. Vedula Chitralekha for

respondents.

2. The appellant herein is defendant in O.S.No.230 of

2019. The said suit was instituted praying to direct the

defendant to vacate and handover vacant physical possession

of the suit schedule property; to direct the defendant to pay

Rs.12,87,452/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per

annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of

realization, and to direct the defendant to pay the damages at

the rate of Rs.7,00,000/- per month from the date of suit till

the date of vacating and handing over the possession of the

suit schedule property. In the said suit the appellant herein

filed a counter claim claiming damages of Rs.1,55,50,000/-

with interest at the rate of 18% against the plaintiff on the

ground that he has incurred huge loss due to the conduct of

the plaintiff with reference to various aspects mentioned in

the counter claim.

3. Though the trial Court framed one of the issues on the

counter claim, but when it comes to the decision, the trial

Court only said that since the suit is decreed in favour of the

plaintiffs, the issue of damages claimed against plaintiff were

not entitled and accordingly, rejected the counter claim.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.230 of 2019,

C.C.C.A.No.44 of 2022 was filed and this appeal is preferred

challenging the decision to the extent of not granting relief in

the counter claim.

4. Whether the counter claim is valid and whether the

appellant herein is entitled to the damages claimed are

matters requiring consideration by the trial Court.

5. Though trial Court framed issue No.4 on the counter

claim made by the appellant which also requires leading of

evidence and consideration of respective submissions, the

trial Court grossly erred in not recording findings on the

counter claim. The trial Court could not have summarily

recorded that since the claim of plaintiff is accepted, the relief

of damages cannot be granted. We are of the opinion that to

that extent the trial Court grossly erred in not deciding the

counter claim on its own merits.

6. Therefore, we set-aside the judgment of the trial Court

to the extent of Issue No.4, and remit the matter to the trial

Court for decision on the counter claim filed by the appellant

herein. However, it is open to the parties to lead evidence and

raise all pleas as available in law before the trial Court.

Accordingly, the City Civil Court Appeal is allowed and

remanded to that extent.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

_____________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO,J

Date: 31.10.2022 PT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.48 of 2022 Date:31.10.2022

PT