Telangana High Court

T. Narsimulu vs G. Shivappa on 4 March, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

           THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2096 OF 2021

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.4

aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in I.A. No.683 of 2021 in

O.S .No.135 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga

Reddy District for dismissing the petition filed by him to reject the plaint

under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC.

2. Heard Sri G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-

defendant No.4 and Ms. A. Sunitha, learned counsel representing Smt. N.

Malathi Naidu, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent

Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of

possession and declaration of registered sale deeds bearing document

Nos.763 of 1991, 371 of 1993 and 2067 of 2010 as not binding upon them

and for rectification of revenue records from the year 1996-1997 till date.

After receiving the summons, plaint and documents, the petitioner herein

filed a petition under Order-VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC to reject the

plaint on the grounds that there was no cause of action for the suit and that

the suit was barred by limitation. The plaint was cleverly drafted seeking a

Dr.GRR,J

relief that the registered sale deed documents were not binding on the

plaintiffs instead of seeking the relief for cancellation of those documents

knowing well that if the said prayer was made, it would squarely be barred

by limitation. As per Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act, the time

prescribed for seeking for declaration and cancellation of any document

was three years from the date of execution. The initial document executed

by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was a registered sale deed

document No.763 of 1991. It was not only an ancient document, but also a

document conferring rights in favour of vendees nearly three decades back.

If at all the same was sought to be cancelled, the suit ought to be instituted

in the year 1994 itself but it was filed in the year 2021 i.e. nearly 27 years

after expiry of the period of limitation. For filing the suit seeking the said

relief by clever drafting, the plaintiffs contended that they came to know

about the documents only in the year 2020, when the defendant No.4 filed

the suit O.S No.211 of 2020, which was a false and baseless allegation

made only to cover up the limitation aspect and to bring the suit within the

limitation.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that defendant No.1, being

the absolute owner of an extent of Acs.6.02 gts., of land in Sy. No.126,

whose name was appearing as pattedar and possessor in the revenue records

Dr.GRR,J

since 1970, sold an extent of Acs.4.02 gts., vide document No.763 of 1991,

dated 18.06.1991 in favour of defendant No.2 and sold the balance extent of

Acs.2.00 gts., through sale deed document No.762 of 1991 dated

18.06.1991 in favor of one Jahera Begum, who was not made as a party in

the suit. In the light of the said facts, the allegation that the plaintiffs were

also having a share in the property of Acs.2.00 gts., along with defendant

No.1 would not arise. If at all they had any rights in Sy.No.126, certainly

they would come to know about the said sale transactions, but the plaintiffs

kept silent for a period of 30 years and now questioning the validity of

those documents, which was beyond the scope of consideration. On the

ground that the plaintiffs were innocent and illiterate, they could not re-

write the law of limitation because ignorance of law had no excuse.

Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs that they too had a share in the said

survey number had no element of force. If at all they had any rights as

alleged they could have filed the suit for partition, but not a suit of this

nature. Under the strength of document No.763 of 1991, the defendant

No.2-Syed Imam sold Acs.2.00 gts., of land in favour of Abdullah Khan

under document No.1290 of 1991 dated 10.10.1991, but the said Abdullah

Khan was not shown as a party to the suit. Defendant No.2 also sold

Ac.1.00 gts., of land to defendant No.3 vide sale deed No.371 of 1993 dated

08.05.1993, who inturn sold the said extent of Ac.1.00 gts., in favour of

Dr.GRR,J

defendant No.4-petitioner herein and sold the balance extent of Ac.1.02

gts., out of Acs.4.02 gts., in favour of Abdul Sattar. But the said Abdul

Sattar was not made as a party to the suit. Thus, the suit was bad for non-

joinder of necessary parties i.e. Jahera Begum, Abdullah Khan and Abdul

Sattar. On this ground alone, the suit was defective and liable to be

dismissed.

3.2. He further contended that the petitioner-defendant No.4 having

purchased Acs.1.00 of land from defendant No.3 through registered sale

deed No.2067 of 2010 dated 01.07.2010 had been in possession and

enjoyment of the same as its absolute owner, being a bonafide purchaser.

To defeat the rights of the petitioner-defendant No.4 herein, the plaintiffs

filed the suit which was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected at

the threshold. In order to claim rights over the schedule property, the

plaintiffs must initially produce strong evidence to show that they had

rights but as could be seen from the list of documents filed by the plaintiffs,

except the document belonging to defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the copies of

the suit filed by the defendant No.4 and the injunction order passed by this

Court, the plaintiffs had not filed any document to show that they were also

shareholders along with defendant No.1 in Sy. No.126. The one and the

only document filed by them was the certified copy of pahani for the year

Dr.GRR,J

1995-1996. In that document also, the names of the plaintiffs were neither

shown as pattadars nor as possessors. Knowingly or unknowingly their

names were written in pattadar column and were rounded off with the

initials of revenue officials. Those entries could be termed as stray entries

which could be used to draw an inference about the rights of defendant

Nos.2 to 4. It was well settled that stray entries in revenue records would

not confer any rights to anyone. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to produce

any piece of material to speak for their right to seek for declaration of title.

The case of the plaintiffs was that there was an oral partition between them

and defendant No.1 in the year 1996, as such, prior to 1996, the names of

ancestors of the plaintiffs must appear in the revenue records, but in fact

from 1970 onwards the name of defendant No.1 alone was shown as

pattadar and possessor of land in Sy.No.126 that too for Acs.6.02 gts., but

not Acs.4.02 gts., as claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. If at all, the

contention of the plaintiffs was true an extent of Acs.3.01 gts., must appear

in the name of the plaintiffs from 1996 onwards, but the plaintiffs claimed

that a partition took place in which allegedly Acs.2.01 gts., fell to their

share, but not even a single document was filed by them in support of the so

called title claimed by them, which would mean that except illusory cause

of action, cleverly drafted, not even a scrap of paper was filed by the

plaintiffs in support of their alleged title. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to file

Dr.GRR,J

any document in support of their right to a judgment, to declare their title to

the suit schedule property. Hence, it could be held that there was no cause

of action to file the suit. The plaintiffs failed to show that any act was done

by the defendants as cause of action to accrue upon them. The suit was

filed by the plaintiffs only as a counter blast to O.S. No.211 of 2020 filed

by the petitioner-defendant No.4 against the plaintiffs, as an afterthought.

The plaintiffs were silently sleeping over their rights and title till then.

Only after obtaining injunction order by the petitioner-defendant No.4, the

present suit was filed by the plaintiffs. The suit in O.S. No.211 of 2020 was

filed by the petitioner-defendant No.4 due to interference by plaintiffs

herein with his possession. To put the petitioner herein under pressure,

threat and to blackmail him for a malafide gain, the suit was filed by the

plaintiffs, without there being any cause of action. The plaintiffs had

knowledge about the documents executed by defendant No.1 in favour of

defendant No.2 and other persons in the year 1991 itself. Therefore, the

present suit filed in the year 2021 was squarely barred by limitation under

Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act, but the plaintiffs falsely alleged that

the suit was within limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act which

was false and baseless. For a declaratory relief, three years was the time

from the date of cause of action as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The

cause of action arose in 1991 initially and subsequently in 1993 and

Dr.GRR,J

thereafter in 2010 when the petitioner-defendant No.4 purchased Ac.1.00

gts., of land from defendant No.3 in the year 2010. From the said date also

the suit was barred by limitation. The petitioner was in continuous

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 2010 for a

period of 11 years. His name was recorded as pattedar and possessor in the

revenue records. Only after the petitioner-defendant No.4 obtained mining

lease permission from the Mining Department to excavate lime stone, the

plaintiffs herein for malafide gains interfered with the possession of the

petitioner compelling him to file a suit for injunction in O.S. No.211 of

2020. When the petitioner-defendant No.4 did not yield to the illegal

demands of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs cooked up an illusory cause of action by

cleverly drafting the plaint which was barred by limitation and relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Arivandandam vs. T.V.

Satyapal & another1 and Fateji & Co. and another vs. L.M. Nagpal and

others2 and the order of this Court in CRP No.1043 of 2017 dated

16.06.2017.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,

contended that one G. Saidappa-defendant No.1 was the absolute owner

and possessor of the land in Sy. No.126 admeasuring an extent of Acs.6.02

1977 AIR 2421

2015 (4) ALD 183 (SC)

Dr.GRR,J

gts. The land to an extent of Acs.4.02 gts., was the joint family property of

the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs came to know about the

execution of illegal registered sale deed document No.763 of 1991 to an

extent of Acs.4.02 gts., in favour of defendant No.2 and in turn defendant

No.2 executing a registered sale deed document No.1290 of 1991 to an

extent of Acs.2.00 in favour of Abdullah Khan and executing an extent of

Ac.1.00 gts., in favour of defendant No.3 vide document No.371 of 1993

and defendant No.3 in turn executing a registered sale deed in favour of

defendant No.4 vide document No.2067 of 2010 only after receipt of

summons from the court in O.S. No.211 of 2020. The plaintiffs were

absolute owners to an extent of Acs.2.01 gts., of land in Sy. No.126/A of

Karankote village out of Acs.4.02 gts., and the petitioner-defendant No.4

had no right to question with regard to the non-joinder of necessary parties.

The plaintiffs had every right to amend the plaint whenever necessary to the

said effect. The plaintiffs filed injunction petition against the petitioner-

defendant No.4 and others, seeking the relief against the petitioner only as

he was excavating and going on with the mining operations basing upon the

illegal mining licence obtained by him by fraud by showing wrong

boundaries. As the matter was urgent and the petitioner was going on with

mining operations over the suit land, the plaintiffs had not pressed the

petition against respondent No.3. The allegation that the suit was not

Dr.GRR,J

pressed against defendant No.3 was false. The petitioner with a dishonest

intention as he got the land in Sy. No.127 abutting the suit land, got

executed a registered sale deed from defendant No.3 by showing wrong

boundary towards southern side and on the basis of the said illegal

registered sale deed and wrong boundaries, by misleading the mining

authorities obtained an illegal mining licence by playing fraud in the year

2012. The petitioner-defendant No.4 for all the years kept quiet and

suddenly occupied the land of the plaintiffs under the guise of ex parte

injunction orders granted by the court in O.S.No.211 of 2020. The

plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as on the date

of filing of the suit by the petitioner-defendant No.4 vide O.S. No.211 of

2020 and the question of their interference would not arise. The petitioner-

defendant No.4 by suppressing the real facts and by creating wrong

boundaries in the sale deed obtained ex parte injunction order against the

plaintiffs. The petitioner being financially sound and by managing the

police personnel illegally occupied the 'B' schedule property under the

guise of injunction orders and was going on with the mining operations

with two big cutting machines day and night. It was false to state that the

suit was filed after lapse of 25 years. In fact, the plaintiffs came to know

about the manipulation of revenue records and creation of subsequent sale

deeds of the suit land only after receipt of the summons, notices by them

Dr.GRR,J

from the court in O.S. No.211 of 2020. The land in Sy. No.126/1 was

nominally in the name of the defendant No.1 in the revenue records, but the

land to an extent of Acs.4.02 gts., in Sy. No.126/1 was the joint family

property of them and the defendant No.1. Basing upon their possession and

enjoyment, the revenue authorities passed an order vide proceedings

No.H/448/1996, dated 26.02.1996. But, the said file was misplaced in the

Tahsildar office. The cause of action arose from the date of knowledge of

the plaintiffs when they received summons/notices etc., from the court in

O.S. No.211 of 2020. Rejection of plaint could not be considered at this

stage. The trial court rightly passed the impugned order dismissing the

petition filed by the petitioner-defendant No.4 herein. The limitation was a

mixed question of fact and law which would need adjudication. The

injunction suit filed by the petitioner-defendant No.4 was still pending

before the court and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Chhotanben and another v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and

others3 and Salim D Agboatwala and Ors., v. Shamalji Oddhavji

Thakkar and Ors. 4

5. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC speaks about rejection of plaint. It

reads as follows:

(2018) 6 SCC 422

2021 LawSuit (SC) 517

Dr.GRR,J

"11. Rejection of plaint: -- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule.9."

6. The petitioner-defendant No.4 filed the present application on two

grounds:

(1) that the suit was barred by limitation and

(2) that there was no cause of action.

7. The word 'shall' used in Order VII Rule 11 of CPC implies that a

duty was cast upon the court to perform its obligations in rejecting the

plaint when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the four

clauses of Rule 11 under (a), (b), (c) and (d). While deciding an application

under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the court need to look into the averments

Dr.GRR,J

of the plaint and the documents referred to in the plaint. The plea taken by

the defendant in the written statement is irrelevant and cannot be taken into

consideration as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahiben v.

Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) 5. The test for exercising the

power under Order VII Rule 11 is stated in the above case by the Hon'ble

Apex Court as if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in

conjunction with the documents relied upon, whether the same would result

in a decree being passed. In Hardesh Ores (Pvt. Ltd) v. M/s. Hede And

Company 6, the court held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or

a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance and not merely the

form which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it

stands, without addition or subtraction of words.

8. The court must examine the plaint and determine when the right

to sue is first accrued in the plaint, and whether on the assumed facts, the

plaint is within time. The words 'right to sue' means the right to seek relief

by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the

cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in

the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to

infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted.

2020 SCC OnLine 563

2007 (5) SCC 614

Dr.GRR,J

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chhotanben and another v.

Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and others (3 supra) held that:

"What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order VII Rule 11(d), is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane."

10. In Salim D Agboatwala and Ors., v. Shamalji Oddhavji

Thakkar and Ors. (4 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to its

earlier judgments held that:

"13. As observed by this Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others, the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the Court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11.

14. Again as pointed out by a three member bench of this Court in Chhotanben vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, the plea regarding the date on which the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential facts, is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. It becomes a triable issue and hence the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold."

Dr.GRR,J

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Arivandandam vs. T.V.

Satyapal & another (1 supra) held that:

"The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under Or. VII Rule 11 C.P.C., taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage."

12. Keeping the above principles in mind when the plaint is looked

into, the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were real

brothers and were sons of late Gudeti Balappa. The father of the plaintiffs

late Gudeti Balappa and father of defendant No.1 late G. Bheemappa were

real brothers. The agricultural lands in Sy. No.296 admeasuring Acs.13.19

gts., in Sy. No.297 admeasuring Acs.6.14 gts., and in Sy.No.126/1

admeasuring Acs.4.02 gts., all situated at Karankote village were the

ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The

said lands were nominally mutated in the name of defendant No.1 in

revenue records. The father of the plaintiffs as well as father of defendant

No.1 died. The plaintiffs were jointly entitled for half share and the

defendant No.1 was entitled for half share in the above said lands. The

Dr.GRR,J

plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant No.1 got divided and partitioned the said

lands equally and as per the oral partition, the land in Sy. No.296 to an

extent of Acs.6.30 gts., fallen to the share of defendant No.1 and the land to

an extent of Acs.3.15 gts., fallen to the share of the plaintiff No.1 and the

land to an extent of Acs.3.14 gts., fallen to the share of plaintiff No.2. The

land to an extent of Acs.3.07 gts., in Sy. No.297 fallen to the share of

defendant No.1 and the land to an extent of Ac.1.24 gts., fallen to the share

of plaintiff No.1 and the land to an extent of Ac.1.23 gts., fallen to the share

of plaintiff No.2. The land of Acs.2.01 in Sy. No.126/1 fallen to the share

of defendant No.1 and the land to an extent of Acs.1.00 gts., fallen to the

share of plaintiff No.1 and the land to an extent of Ac.1.01 gts., fallen to the

share of plaintiff No.2 and as per the partition between the parties, the

plaintiffs and defendant No.1 were in possession and enjoyment of their

respective lands mentioned above and the MRO, Tandur Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District passed orders in proceedings No.H/448/96, dated

26.02.1996. They submitted that the same was recorded in the pahani for

the year 1995-1996. The names of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were rounded

up illegally in pattedar column and then the plaintiffs enquired the

Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal, after receipt of notices, summons from the court

in O.S. No.211 of 2020. The plaintiffs stated that they came to know about

executing registered sale deeds by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant

Dr.GRR,J

No.2 and defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 and defendant No.3

in favour of defendant No.4 only when they were dispossessed by

defendant No.4 after obtaining injunction orders from the court in O.S

.No.211 of 2020 over an extent of Acs.1.00 gts.

13. In the cause of action column No.5 in the plaint, they stated that

the cause of action arose to file the suit when the defendant No.4 came to

the suit land on 28.12.2020 and when he denied the title of the plaintiffs

over the suit land shown in schedule 'A' property and when the defendant

No.4 dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land and commenced and

continued illegal mining work in the suit land shown in schedule 'B'

property.

14. Ordinarily, a court of law is to presume that every allegation in

the plaint is true. As a matter of fact, when the plaint raises arguable points

which requires deeper deliberation and scrutiny, the same cannot be

rejected at the threshold. If the averments made in the plaint and the

documents relied upon establish a cause of action, then the plaint should not

be merely rejected based on the reason that the averments are not enough to

prove the facts mentioned therein.

Dr.GRR,J

15. The cause of action implies the right to sue. The material facts

which are imperative to allege and prove constitute cause of action. The

cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been

judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact, which would be

necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed in order to support his right

to the judgment of the court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything

which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment

would be part of cause of action. In other words, it is a bundle of facts,

which along with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right of

relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the

defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can

possibly accrued. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause

of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations

are true in fact.

16. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-

defendant No.4 that the suit was barred by limitation under Sections 58 and

59 of the Limitation Act, as the time prescribed for seeking for declaration

and cancellation of any document was only three years from the date of

execution, but, the plaintiffs claimed that the suit was filed within

time under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. It was only a clever

Dr.GRR,J

drafting. The respondents-plaintiffs contended that they were in possession

of the property and only when the defendant No.4 obtained an injunction

order in O.S .No.211 of 2020, they came to know about the creation of false

and fake registered sale deeds in his name by showing wrong boundaries.

17. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saleem D

Agboatwala and others wherein by placing reliance upon its earlier

judgments in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy. V. P. Neeradha Reddy and others

[2015 (8) SCC 331] and in Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai

Thakkar, it was held that:

"The conditions precedent to the exercise of the power under Order VII Rule 7 CPC are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The plea regarding date on which the plaintiffs gained the knowledge of the essential facts, is held to be crucial for deciding the question whether suit is barred by limitation or not. It becomes a triable issue and hence, the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold. As rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 7 CPC is a drastic power conferred on the court to terminate the action at the threshold."

18. Considering the principle reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the above case, this Court considers that the trial court had not

Dr.GRR,J

committed any wrong in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner-

defendant No.4 on the ground that the plaint was barred by limitation.

With regard to the second contention of the petitioner-defendant

No.4 that there was no cause of action, as no act was done by the defendant

No.4, this Court considers that the said contention lacks merit, as the

plaintiffs clearly stated in the plaint in the column of cause of action that

the cause of action arose to file the suit when the defendant No.4 came to

the suit land on 28.12.2020 and when he denied the title of the plaintiffs

over the suit land and dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land and

when he commenced and continued the illegal mining work in the suit land

shown in 'B' schedule property.

19. Thus, as the plain reading of the plaint discloses a cause of

action and the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the said

allegations were true in fact or not at this stage and the jurisdiction of the

court is restricted to ascertain whether on the allegations, a cause of action

is shown and does not extend to triable issues, this Court does not find any

illegality in the order of the trial court in dismissing the petition filed by the

petitioner-defendant No.4 for rejecting the plaint.

Dr.GRR,J

20. In the result, the CRP is dismissed confirming the order dated

24.11.2021 passed in I.A. No.683 of 2021 in O.S .No.135 of 2021 on the

file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. No order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J March 4th, 2025 KTL