Telangana High Court
Kasubojula Sambaiah vs Smt. P Pushpamala Reddy on 3 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.243 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order
dated 13.12.2023 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Hanamkonda in I.A.No.420 of 2023 in OS.No.2372 of 2022.
2. Heard Sri Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for
revision petitioner and Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent.
3. The revision petitioner is defendant and the respondent
herein is plaintiff in the suit before the trial Court. For convenience,
hereinafter the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.
4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed a suit
in OS.No.2372 of 2022 (Old OS.No.42 of 2016) on the file of the
II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda, against the
defendant for permanent injunction restraining him and his agents,
workmen, etc., from interfering with the suit schedule property
admeasuring 0.23 guntas in Sy.No.579 of Waddepally Village,
Warangal District. The plaintiff claims ownership over the suit
schedule property by way of inheritance from her mother. The
defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying
LNA, J
the claim of the plaintiff and contended that his father purchased an
extent of Ac.0.18 guntas in Sy.No.573 (old), New No.581 of
Waddepally Village, from one Anumala Kommalu under simple
sale deed dated 14.08.1980 and the said Anumala Kommalu
purchased the same from one Pingili Ranadheer Reddy under
simple sale deed dated 02.04.1967.
5. When the suit is pending for adjudication, the plaintiff filed
an application in IA.No.420 of 2023 under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC
praying the trial Court to frame an additional issue as to whether
Sy.No.581 admeasuring Ac.0.36 guntas abuts Hanamkonda -
Hyderabad main road and if so, the plaintiff has no claim over it.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the
plaintiff averred that the defendant is claiming ownership of land
admeasuring Ac.0.18 guntas in Sy.No.581 (new) from one
Anumala Kommalu and the said Anumala Kommalu was defendant
No.9 in OS.No.3 of 1999, OS.No.4 of 1999 and OS.No.106 of
1994; that in the said suit, an issue was framed as to whether the
suit land was purchased by defendant No.9 from the father of
defendant No.8 and his father-P.Vijayapal Reddy in the year 1967
and in turn sold the said land to K.Rajaiah on 14.08.1980. The said
LNA, J
suit was dismissed after full-fledged trial and the judgment and
decree passed in the said suit has become final. It was further
averred that in view of dismissal of the suit, the defendant cannot
claim title to the land admeasuring Ac.0.18 guntas in Sy.No.581
through Anumala Kommalu; that the land in Sy.No.581 is different
from the land in Sy.No.579 which is situated in suit schedule
property and that the land in Sy.No.579 is facing main road
Hanamkonda - Hyderabad and the land in Sy.No.581 is situated
north of Sy.No.579 and no part of Sy.No.581 is abutting the main
road, therefore, the plaintiff filed the application to frame
additional issue as mentioned supra.
7. The defendant did not file counter in the said application
and the trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings and
contentions of the plaintiff, allowed the application vide impugned
order dated 13.12.2023. Challenging the same, the present Revision
Petition is filed.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant
contended that the application filed by the plaintiff is misconceived
and the trial Court without properly appreciating the facts and
circumstances of the case has erroneously allowed the same by the
LNA, J
impugned order. He further contended that the trial Court has
disposed of the application without affording an opportunity of
hearing to the defendant and in any event, the trial Court ought not
to have allowed the application. He further contended that the trial
Court ought to have appointed an Advocate-Commissioner for
identification of the suit property as to whether the same is abutting
Hanamkonda - Hyderabad main road or not, instead of entertaining
the application filed by the plaintiff and prayed to set aside the
impugned order.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant contended
that the trial Court, on proper appreciation of the case and taking
into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, has
rightly allowed the application filed by the plaintiff. He further
contended that framing of an additional issue as sought by the
plaintiff would be in the interest of justice and would aid in proper
adjudication of the lis between the parties to the suit. Hence, he
contended that this Revision Petition is devoid of any merits and is
liable to be dismissed.
10. Perusal of record would disclose that the plaintiff is
claiming land in Sy.No.579, whereas the defendant is claiming land
LNA, J
admeasuring Ac 0.36 guntas in Sy.No.581. It is the specific case of
the plaintiff that the vendor of defendant- Anumala Kommalu has
suffered a decree against him and as such, the defendant cannot
claim ownership over the land in Sy.No.581. Further, the defendant
has specifically averred that the land being claimed by him which
is forming part of Sy.No.581 is facing and abutting Hanamkonda -
Hyderabad main road and therefore, the burden is on the defendant
to prove the said contention. In the above factual background, the
plaintiff filed the application to frame additional issue as mentioned
supra.
11. As per Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, the Court may, at any time
before passing a decree, amend or strike out issues and frame
additional issues in such terms as it thinks fit to be necessary for
determining the matters in controversy.
12. In the present case, the defendant is claiming that the land
in Sy.No.581 is abutting and facing Hanamkonda - Hyderabad
main road, whereas the plaintiff is claiming that the land claimed
by the defendant in Sy.No.581 is situated north of Sy.No.579 and
that, no part of Sy.No.581 is abutting the main road. Since the
contentions/claims of both the parties are at variance with regard to
LNA, J
actual location of land in Sy.No.581, it is appropriate to frame an
additional issue as sought by the plaintiff for proper adjudication of
the lis between the parties.
13. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the trial Court has righty allowed the application of the
plaintiff seeking to frame an additional issue and the revision
petitioner/defendant has failed to point out any illegality or
irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this
Court and accordingly, the Revision Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
14. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 03 .04.2025
dr
