Telangana High Court
M. Venkat Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 27 December, 2023
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27247 of 2023
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the official
respondents in not deleting the wrong entry made against the land
of the petitioner in Sy.No.104 to an extent of Ac.1.14 guntas
situated at Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
in favour of the respondent No.5 and thereafter in the names of the
respondents No.6 and 7, as being illegal and arbitrary.
2. Counter has been filed by the respondent No.7 and reply
affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit of
the respondent No.7.
3. Mr. Avinash Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent No.6, has taken preliminary objection to the
maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that a suit in
O.S.No.21 of 2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar,
was filed by the writ petitioner seeking the same relief. On an
application filed by the respondent No.8 herein under Order VII
Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
for rejection of plaint. The suit was rejected by order dated
02.08.2023 in IA.No.269 of 2022. The writ petitioner filed an appeal
in AS(SR).No.13388 of 2023 challenging the said order. The writ
petitioner is indulging in forum shopping. The writ petitioner cannot
invoke two parallel proceedings simultaneously.
4. Mr. J. Kanakaiah, leaned senior counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the writ petition is maintainable. The relief sought
for in this writ petition is to direct the official respondents to delete
the entries made in favour of respondents No.5 to 7 in respect of
the subject land and has no bearing in the relief sought in the
suit/appeal.
5. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned
senior counsel for the respondent No.6.
6. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit, O.S.No.21 of 2016,
filed for cancellation of decree and judgment in O.S.No.288 of 1981
dated 30.03.1982 on the file of the District Munsif, West and South,
Saroornagar, along with consequential sale deed in favour of
defendant No.1 vide Document No.6454/85 dated 12.09.1985; for
grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and
persons claiming through them from alienating or creating any
charge over the suit schedule property and to direct the defendant
No.3 to record the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit
schedule property in ROR records. An application in IA.No.269 of
2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2016 filed by the respondent No.8 under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed by order dated 02.08.2023 by
rejecting the plaint. The said order was challenged by the petitioner
in AS(SR).No.13388 of 2023 before this Court which is stated to be
pending.
7. It was pleaded in the suit by the petitioner that the sale deed
bearing document No.6454/85 was fraudulent and invalid
document. The sale deed was, allegedly, executed by Justice M.S.K.
Jaiswal (Retired High Court Judge) when he was the District Munsif,
West and South, Saroornagar. The learned Judge worked as JFCM,
East and North, during the period 1982-85 and not in District
Munsif-cum-JFCM, West and South, as such the execution of the
document No.6454/85 is false. The same averments have been
made in the writ affidavit. Thus, as seen from the record,
the petitioner, having chosen to file a comprehensive suit in
O.S.No.21 of 2016 for declaration of the decree and judgment in
O.S.No.288 of 1981 dated 30.03.1982 as null and void and having
suffered order of rejection of plaint dated 02.08.2023 in IA.No.269
of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2016, has now chosen to approach this
Court to challenge the proceedings issued in favour of the unofficial
respondents.
8. As things stand today, the claim of the petitioner in the suit
stood rejected by rejection of plaint. Thus, having suffered an order
in a comprehensive suit claim, the petitioner cannot be permitted to
file this writ petition to challenge mutation proceedings issued in
favour of the unofficial respondents. The relief, if any, the petitioner
intends to seek, can as well be sought in AS(SR).No.13388 of 2023
filed challenging the order of rejection of plaint. The petitioner
cannot be permitted to invoke parallel remedy under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, having invoked effective civil law
jurisdiction. Thus, on the point of maintainability, this Court holds
that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
December 27, 2023
DSK
