Judgment : The respondent filed O.P.No.597 of 2001 in the Court of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (FTC), Hyderabad, under Sections 7 and 11 of the A.P. (T.A.) Public Societies Registration Act, Fasli, claiming as many as six reliefs. Subsequently, he filed a memo, on 31.01.2005, stating that the relief claimed at item No.2, in the prayer, was already extended to him and that he does not intend to press the other reliefs. The trial Court rendered a judgment on 19.02.2005, closing the petition. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is a Housing Society, and the respondent filed the O.P., claiming various rights, in respect of plot No.69 of Railway Employees’ Cooperative Housing Society, Thokatta Village, Sikh Road, Secunderabad. The reliefs claimed by him are: “(i) Restrain the respondent, its office bearers, executive committee members, members or any other person or persons acting for an on behalf of the respondent society herein from either interfering with the peaceful possession, enjoyment, use and occupation of the petition schedule premises by the petitioner, his family members, visitors, representatives, employees and any person or persons claiming under or on behalf of the petitioner herein. (ii) Direct the respondent herein to restore the water connection to the Plot No.69. (iii) Direct the respondent herein to furnish the audited accounts of the respondent society for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. (iv) Direct the respondent herein to take similar action against the other plot owners where construction activity is going on and in respect of the houses already constructed which are in deviation of the sanction accorded to them. (v) Direct the respondent herein to pay the costs of the present petition. (vi) Grant such other appropriate orders or directions, as this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.” The petitioner filed a detailed counter, opposing the O.P. In addition to the O.P., several proceedings ensued between the parties. The respondents filed W.P.No.926 of 2003 challenging the notice, issued by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, proposing to demolish the structures. He has also filed W.P.M.P.No.1188 of 2003, for stay of demolition. The respondents filed W.P.No.926 of 2003 challenging the notice, issued by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, proposing to demolish the structures. He has also filed W.P.M.P.No.1188 of 2003, for stay of demolition. Initially, an order of stay was granted, and thereafter, this Court modified the said order, at the instance of the Cantonment Board and the relevant portion of the order, dated 05.02.2003, reads as under: “Whether the constructions are made contrary to the sanctioned plan or not, is a matter to be considered at the time of final hearing of the Writ Petition. As the impugned proceedings is an order for removal of structure, if the interim orders are vacated, the very issue will become infructuous. In that view of the matter, it is a case to expedite the hearing of the Writ Petition, and the interim order, dated 23.01.2003 is hereby made absolute. Further there shall be a restraint on the petitioner that he shall not use and shall not allow the said structure to be used by the third parties as a Mosque till the disposal of the Writ Petition.” It is to be noted that the respondent was specifically restrained from using the plot, in any manner, either by himself, or by third parties, as Mosque. The writ petition is said to have been dismissed for default,in the recent past. After this development, the respondent filed a memo, dated 31.01.2005. The writ petition is said to have been dismissed for default,in the recent past. After this development, the respondent filed a memo, dated 31.01.2005. It is relevant to extract the memo, in its entirety: “The petitioner submits as follows:- In the above O.P., the petitioner is ready and willing to give up the prayers mentioned at paragraphs bearing No’s (i), (iii), (iv) and (v) as the prayer at paragraph No.(ii) having become infructuous by virtue of the water connection having been restored by the Respondent Society after the institution of the above O.P. The said prayers as mentioned above are being given up by the Petitioner herein based on the assurance given by the Respondent through its Counsel that there shall be no interference of whatsoever nature by the Respondent Society and its office bearers, other than by due process of law, in respect of any activity whatsoever, including prayers for five times daily being carried out in the petition schedule property and further assurance that neither the Respondent Society nor its office bearers or any other person or persons claiming for and on its behalf shall at any point of time restrain the usage of the petition schedule premises for any lawful and legal purpose or hinder the ingress or egress for any of the relatives, friends, family members, visitors, representatives, employees etc. visiting the petition schedule premises. The petitioner in addition to giving up the above mentioned prayers also undertakes that he shall not convert the petition schedule premises into a mosque so as to cause any disturbance, inconvenience or any sort of hindrance or nuisance of any nature whatsoever to the other residents/members of the Respondent Society and in the event of any disturbance, inconvenience or any sort of hindrance or nuisance being caused the Respondent Society shall be entitled to take action as per law, further the Petitioner reserves his right to offer prayers in a congregation at any point of time in the petition schedule premises along with his family, friends and visitors at that relevant point of time. The petitioner therefore submits that the above O.P. may accordingly be closed after recording this memo.” In case the trial Court intended to grant any relief, it ought to have undertaken trial. Disposal of a contested matter, on the strength of a memo and granting relief, is totally impermissible in law. The petitioner therefore submits that the above O.P. may accordingly be closed after recording this memo.” In case the trial Court intended to grant any relief, it ought to have undertaken trial. Disposal of a contested matter, on the strength of a memo and granting relief, is totally impermissible in law. It is important to note that the respondent never claimed right to offer prayers in the petition schedule properties, in the O.P. It is an improvement through the memo. In case the respondent wanted such a relief, he ought to have filed a suit for declaration or sought for amendment of the O.P. Under the guise of giving up the prayers in the O.P., he sought to introduce totally a different relief. The trial Court unfortunately, did not realize this mischievous attempt on the part of the respondent, and had simply closed the O.P., duly granting the relief, which could not have been granted, even if the O.P., were to have been allowed. The operative portion of the order, passed by the trail Court, reads as under: “In the circumstances, in consonance with the orders of the High Court. It is further ordered that the petitioner or his GPA or his caretaker or anybody representing him should not use the structure as mosque. The caretaker or who ever occupies the same and their respective family members can offer prayers in the structures. Their occasional friends or relatives can also join them in the prayer, but it should not be a regular feature. With the said observations, this petition is closed. Each party to bear their own costs.” This Court takes serious exception to the manner in which the trial Court had dealt with the O.P., without realizing the implications of its omission. The order passed by the trail Court runs contrary to the specific order passed by this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.1188 of 2003 in W.P.No.926 of 2003. The impugned order cannot be sustained, either in facts, or in law. Hence, the C.R.P., is allowed and the order under revision is set aside, insofar as it has granted the permission to the respondent, his friends, or relatives, to conduct prayers over the petition schedule property. Since the other prayers in the O.P., were given up by the respondent, it is directed that the O.P., shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.