Telangana High Court
Lingala Satyanarayana vs Smt. Vavilla Manemma on 17 February, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.485 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners - defendants 2 and
5 aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2019 passed in C.F.R.No.368 of 2019 in
O.S.No.11 of 2006 in returning the review petition.
2. Heard Sri K.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the petitioners - defendants 2
and 5 and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 -
plaintiffs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that O.S.No.11 of 2006 was
filed by the respondents - plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration of title and for
perpetual injunction and to insert the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue
records and to cancel the name of defendant No.1 in the ROR register. The
defendants filed written statement by making counter claim seeking the relief of
declaration of the sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs as null and void and for
injunction. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs declaring
them as owners of the suit land and dismissed the counter claim of the
defendants and directed the defendants to deliver possession of the suit land
within three months from the date of decree along with costs of the suit.
Dr.GRR, J
crp_485_2019
3.1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that no relief
of recovery of possession was sought for by the plaintiffs, but, however the trial
court granted the said relief, which was an error apparent on the face of the
record. As such, the defendants filed an application for review of the said
judgment and order. But without giving them an opportunity to submit their
arguments, the trial court returned the application at the threshold itself
observing that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, against
which this review application is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that appeals were
preferred by the revision petitioners herein, which were pending as A.S.No.25
of 2022 and A.S.No.28 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District
Judge, Nagarkurnool. The defendant No.1 also preferred an appeal vide
A.S.No.62 of 2022, which was dismissed for default on 06.12.2023. I.A.No.53
of 2024 is filed for restoration of the said appeal and the same was pending. He
further submitted that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to
entertain the review application and the trial court rightly returned the same.
5. Perused the record.
6. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, as the appeal
suits filed by the petitioners herein are pending and as all these submissions
raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners are the subject matter
Dr.GRR, J
crp_485_2019
of the appeals, it is considered fit to dismiss this CRP directing the petitioners to
prosecute their remedies before the Appellate Court. However, considering that
the stay order is granted by this Court in the CRP on 27.02.2019, and the
learned counsel for the petitioners reported that due to this stay order, they have
not insisted for grant of stay in the appeals, which were pending, it is considered
fit to direct the Appellate Court to dispose of the said applications pending
before it as per law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and the stay granted by this Court shall be continued till then.
The lower Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the said I.A.s seeking the
relief of stay in the Appeal Suits un-influenced by the observations of this
Court.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above
directions. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G. RADHARANI, J
Date: 17th February, 2025
Note:
Issue CC by today
b/o
Nsk
