Telangana High Court
Pindi Narsimha Reddy, vs The Ghmc Reptd., on 8 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3441 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the Order dated
04.07.2023 in Memo S.R.No.1490 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2019 on
the file of the learned II Additional District Judge Court, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B.Nagar.
2. The petitioners herein are plantiff Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 in the
suit and respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 in the appeal. Petitioner
Nos.7 and 8 are respondent Nos.12 and 14 in the appeal. Respondent
No.1 herein is defendant No.1 in the suit and appellant in the appeal.
Respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.2 in the suit and respondent
No.11 in the appeal. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are plaintiff Nos.1 and 2
in the suit and respondent Nos.1 and 3 in the appeal. Respondent No.5
is not necessary party. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are
referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiffs filed
O.S.No.1902 of 2008 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the
2 LNA, J
defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. It appears
that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have not pressed the
suit against defendant No.2 i.e., Hasthinapuram North Extension
Residents Welfare Association, (for short, 'Association') and the said
suit was decreed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.06.2011.
Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 GHMC filed A.S.No.77 of
2019, in which defendant No.2 Association was also made party as
respondent No.11, though the suit was not pressed against defendant
No.2 Association by the plaintiffs. When the said discrepancy was
pointed out by defendant No.2 Association, defendant No.1 filed
Memo SR.No.1490 of 2023 seeking permission for withdrawing the
statement of not press filed against defendant No.2 Association and
the said Memo was accepted and upheld vide Order dated 04.07.2023
permitting defendant No.1 GHMC to withdraw the statement of not
press against defendant No.2 Association. Aggrieved by the same, the
Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners herein.
4. Heard Ms.Tejaswini Mereddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners; Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for
3 LNA, J
GHMC appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Chalakani Venkat
Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit defendant
No.2 filed I.A.No.364 of 2010 in O.S.No.1902 of 2008 under Order I
Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead the proposed defendant as
defendant No.2 in the suit and the same was dismissed vide Order
dated 20.04.2010 and the said dismissal order was not challenged
thereof. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have
not pressed the suit against defendant No.2 Association and the said
suit was decreed by the trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that
having not pressed the suit against defendant No.2 Association, the
defendant No.1 GHMC filed a Memo to withdraw the statement of not
press and the Appellate Court has committed error in accepting the
Memo and permitting to withdraw the statement of not press against
defendant No.2 Association.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Syed Yousuf Ali Vs.
4 LNA, J
1.Mohd. Yousuf and others 1, wherein it is held that no judicial Order
can be passed based on memo. Filling of memo is not contemplated
either under Code of Civil Procedure or under Civil Rules of Practice.
The purpose of receiving memos by the Courts is only to receive
certain intimation pertaining to the lis pending before it. Therefore,
the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Appellate Court is
unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
8. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent
No.1 has not disputed the facts of the case and the impugned order
passed by the appellate Court. However, he sought liberty to avail the
remedies as available under law.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/defendant No.2
Association would submit that the valuable rights of the Association
are not verified. The plaintiffs are not the owners and possessors of
the land in Sy Nos.25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 admeasuring Ac.1-17 guntas
situated at Karamahghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District. Since they have already sold their land to the Members of
Association, there is no open land except the land which was allotted
5 LNA, J
to the suit as misconceived. Therefore, defendant No.2 Association is
necessary party and he further contended that the Appellate Court has
rightly allowed the Memo vide Order dated 04.07.2023 and no
grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the
Appellate Court.
10. On perusal of the record, it discloses that initially suit was filed
by the plaintiffs against defendant Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, defendant
No.2 Association filed I.A for impleading proposed defendant as
defendant No.2, but the same was dismissed and was not challenged
thereof. However, defendant No.2 Association was not pressed in the
suit. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 GHMC filed Appeal Suit
and during the pendency of appeal suit, defendant No.1 GHMC has
filed a Memo seeking to withdraw the statement of not press. The
filling of appeal by defendant No.1 GHMC including the name of
defendant No.2 Association is contrary to the decree passed by the
trial Court and the same is impermissible.
11. Following the principles laid down by erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Syed Yousuf Ali (one cited supra), the order passed
on Memo cannot be pressed. Therefore, the appellate Court has
6 LNA, J
committed error in interpretating the memo and passing orders to
defendant No.1 GHMC to withdraw the statement of not press against
defendant No.2 Association.
12. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and
also the ratio laid down by this Court in Syed Yousuf Ali, (one cited
supra), this Court of the opinion that the order passed by the appellate
Court is untenable and the same is liable to be set-aside.
13. Accordingly, the order under revision is hereby set aside and
the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that
respondent No.1 GHMC is at liberty to avail all the remedies available
under law, if so permissible. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:08.04.2025
dgr
