Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 46 (TS)

G. Ananthalakshmi v. S. Srinivasulu

2025-02-14

P.SAM KOSHY

body2025
ORDER : P.Sam Koshy, J. Since the issue in these two Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are being decided by this Common Order. 2. Heard Mr. Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Srinivas Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Civil Revision Petition No.1200 of 2023 is filed assailing the docket order dated 11.04.2023, in E.A.S.R.No.4429 of 2023 in E.P.No.157 of 2023 in O.S.No.135 of 2006, on the file of the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. Similarly, Civil Revision Petition No.1651 of 2023 is also filed assailing the docket order dated 11.04.2023 in E.A.S.R.No.4422 of 2023, in E.P.No.157 of 2023, arising of the same suit i.e. O.S.No.135 of 2006, on the file of the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. 4. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.1200 of 2023 are discussed herein under. 5. The whole issue germinates from a Civil suit that was filed way back in the year 2006 i.e. O.S.No.135 of 2006 by the respondent herein for declaration of title with delivery of possession, along with mesne profits and damages. After a prolonged litigation, the suit was finally decreed in favour of the respondent herein by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2014. The matter was thereafter subjected to challenge before the High Court by the petitioners herein vide City Civil Court Appeal No.17 of 2014 which too got dismissed on 04.01.2023. Subsequently, the decree holder preferred execution proceedings before the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad vide E.P.No.157 of 2023. In the said petition, an application was filed for grant of mesne profits which was allowed and the judgment debtor was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the suit for illegal use and occupation of the suit schedule property. In the said order, a warrant for delivery of possession was also issued on 04.04.2023. However, the bailiff could execute the warrant on 06.04.2023 due to illegal resistance put by the petitioners herein; the report of which was submitted by the bailiff to the concerned Court. 6. In the said order, a warrant for delivery of possession was also issued on 04.04.2023. However, the bailiff could execute the warrant on 06.04.2023 due to illegal resistance put by the petitioners herein; the report of which was submitted by the bailiff to the concerned Court. 6. Pending the execution proceedings and issuance of warrant of possession, the judgment debtor i.e. the petitioners herein have filed a petition under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, the ‘CPC’) raising an objection so far as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to the dispute also the jurisdiction of the Court in executing the decree. 7. As per the contention of the petitioners in the said application under Section 47 of CPC, they claim to have entered into the premises and are occupying the same in the capacity of tenants and since it was a landlord tenant dispute, the Civil suit was not the proper remedy for the decree holder and in terms of the provisions of the Telangana (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960, a tenant can be evicted only in accordance with Sections 12 and 13 of the Rent Control Act and it is only the authority under the Rent Control Act or the Rent Control Court which has the jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction. Further, the contention of the petitioners was that the entire suit proceedings and the subsequent proceedings drawn thereafter are all nullity and void ab initio without jurisdiction. 8. Initially when the said application was filed under Section 47 of CPC the Execution Court refused to entertain the same and returned to the petitioners holding it to be not maintainable. Then the petitioners again resubmitted the same and made an out of order mentioning for urgently taking up the matter as the Execution Court had already issued warrant of delivery of possession and prayed for stay of the execution proceedings in the light of the said objections. The said application was taken up at the S.R. stage vide E.A.S.R.No.4422 of 2023. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, the impugned order was passed rejecting the said application holding it to be un-sustainable. 9. It is this rejection of the said application under Section 47 of CPC which led to the filing of the instant Revision Petition. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, the impugned order was passed rejecting the said application holding it to be un-sustainable. 9. It is this rejection of the said application under Section 47 of CPC which led to the filing of the instant Revision Petition. 10. While challenging the impugned order, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that; firstly as regards the manner in which the objection was decided by the Execution Court inasmuch as according to the petitioners upon an application under Section 47 of CPC being filed in an execution proceedings it is incumbent for the Court to have registered the said application as an Interlocutory Application and only upon hearing the parties it ought to be decided on merit. However, in the instant case without registering the same, the application stood rejected at the S.R. stage itself which therefore was not sustainable and the same deserves to be set aside. Secondly, once when a legal objection is being raised by either of the parties, there was no reason or occasion for the Execution Court to have not accepted the said objection; neither could it have been decided at the threshold itself without even being numbered as an Interlocutory Application. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since it was a legal objection which otherwise touches the very maintainability of the proceedings before the Civil Court, both in respect of the authority as also in respect of the jurisdiction, such an objection could be raised at any stage of the proceedings including the execution stage, and as such, these objections cannot be simply brushed aside or rejected as a matter of routine at the S.R. stage. 12. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were not given an effective opportunity of hearing on the said objection and the Execution Court in a hasty manner has taken up the application filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of CPC and rejected the said same. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions heavily relied upon the following decisions. i. Kiran Singh and others vs. Paswan and others, AIR 1954 SUPREME COURT 340 ii. D. Satyanarayana Rao vs. Vasudev Asrani and another, 2001 (3) ALD 510 iii. Sarwan Kumar and another vs. Madan Lal Aggarwal, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1475 14. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions heavily relied upon the following decisions. i. Kiran Singh and others vs. Paswan and others, AIR 1954 SUPREME COURT 340 ii. D. Satyanarayana Rao vs. Vasudev Asrani and another, 2001 (3) ALD 510 iii. Sarwan Kumar and another vs. Madan Lal Aggarwal, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1475 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent in the course of his arguments justified the impugned order contending that the petition under Section 47 of CPC filed by the petitioners is nothing but with a mala fide intention of protracting the proceedings as far as possible so that the petitioners can illegally retain and occupy the suit schedule premises. It was contended that the time when the objection under Section 47 of CPC was raised and the date on which the interim orders have been obtained from the High Court are all crucial to justify the aforesaid contention of mala fide intention of the petitioners. 15. According to the learned counsel for the respondent once when O.S.No.135 of 2006 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and which stood confirmed up till the stage of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there was nothing further left for the petitioners to contest. Further, suppressing the fact that the S.L.P. they had preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also got dismissed and in the process the decree getting confirmed, the petitioners have pressed the High Court in respect of the threat of eviction and have obtained an ex-parte stay by virtue of which they are still in illegal possession of the suit premises. 16. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the original suit was one which was filed in the year 2006. In the decree, the first appeal and second appeal, and thereafter in the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the petitioners have never projected themselves to be in occupation of the said premises as tenants. It was for the first time after almost two decades of the proceedings which were initially vitiated in the year 2006 that the petitioners have now raised an objection under Section 47 of CPC highlighting the fact that they are in occupation of the premises as tenants. It was for the first time after almost two decades of the proceedings which were initially vitiated in the year 2006 that the petitioners have now raised an objection under Section 47 of CPC highlighting the fact that they are in occupation of the premises as tenants. Therefore, it was contended that the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain such a claim petition and the proceedings drawn right from the institution of the suit till the S.L.P. having been dismissed before Hon’ble Supreme Court gets vitiated for want of jurisdiction and becomes null and void. 17. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners now in the objection under Section 47 of CPC cannot be accepted, nor is it sustainable in the teeth of the specific plea that they had taken at the first instance when the Written Statement was filed in O.S.No.135 of 2006 and the pleadings that they had raised finally at the S.L.P. stage before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioners in fact have taken the defence before the Civil Court, the High Court and also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that they were the owners of the suit schedule property having title over the same and there was also a plea of the title having been perfected by way of adverse possession without even being referred of having occupied the premises as tenants, or that there being a landlord - tenant relationship between the decree holder and judgment debtor. Therefore, such a plea cannot be permitted to be raised now and the petitioners also have never accepted or admitted being a tenant in the said premises. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contentions relied upon the following decisions. i. Shivaji Balaram Haibatti vs. Avinash Maruthi Pawar, (2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases 652 ii. Pradeep Mehra vs. Harijivan J. Jethwa (Since deceased thr. LRs.) & Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1395 iii. Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Private Limited vs. P.R. Selvam Alagappan, (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371 iv. Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others, (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 418 v. Asma Lateef and another vs. Shabbir Ahmad and others, 2024 (1) ALD 234 (SC) 19. LRs.) & Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1395 iii. Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Private Limited vs. P.R. Selvam Alagappan, (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371 iv. Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others, (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 418 v. Asma Lateef and another vs. Shabbir Ahmad and others, 2024 (1) ALD 234 (SC) 19. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, particularly taking into consideration the checkered history of series of litigations and orders passed thereon, the original suit in the present dispute i.e. O.S.No.135 of 2006 being filed was decreed in favour of the respondent herein on 28.04.2014, the City Civil Court Appeal No.17 of 2014 preferred by the petitioners herein also got dismissed on 04.01.2023 and rejection of the same led to filing of the S.L.P.(C) No.7452 of 2023 and the said S.L.P. was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.04.2023. Right from the Civil Court, up till the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter was pending consideration at various levels and stages for almost a period of seventeen years. All along, the stand of the petitioners was that they are the owners of the said property and they had perfected the title by way of adverse possession. In between, the respondent had filed an execution petition i.e. E.P.No.157 of 2023 and a warrant of possession was also issued on 04.04.2023. However, since the petitioners have resisted, the bailiff could not take delivery of possession; the report of which was also furnished to the concerned Court. 20. In the teeth of the aforesaid factual matrix, the points for consideration now are two-fold, viz., a) Whether the impugned order gets vitiated since it has been ordered at the S.R. stage? b) Whether the Execution Court was justified in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of CPC? Both these points, in the opinion of this Court, are too hyper technical an issue when we look at the proceedings as a whole. 21. As regards the rejection of the petition under Section 47 of CPC at the S.R. stage, the wordings of the Execution Court while deciding the objections so raised is self-explanatory by itself. It is clearly revealed that the petitioners had at the first instance presented the said objection which was refused by the Trial Court. 21. As regards the rejection of the petition under Section 47 of CPC at the S.R. stage, the wordings of the Execution Court while deciding the objections so raised is self-explanatory by itself. It is clearly revealed that the petitioners had at the first instance presented the said objection which was refused by the Trial Court. The petitioners thereafter resubmitted the said petition under Section 47 of CPC and at the same time made an out of turn hearing of the matter on urgent basis. It was this out of turn mentioning before the Court which led the hearing to commence and the impugned order getting passed. 22. In the given factual backdrop, since the Execution Court had already heard the matter so far as its maintainability is concerned, it went on to decide the same continuously and in the process, the registration of the said petition filed under Section 47 of CPC could not be carried out and the impugned order was passed. But the fact remains that the Court had heard the Counsel for the petitioners elaborately and dealt with all the objections that were raised and finally found no merits on the said objection. In the said circumstances, if the order has been passed at the S.R. stage, the same cannot be found to be erroneous or bad in law. 23. As regards the objection under Section 47 of CPC can be raised at any stage of the proceedings including the execution stage, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the said principle. However, the petitioners contradictory stand raises serious concerns about the integrity of their legal arguments and the proper administration of justice. Not only does it appear to be a deliberate attempt to protract the proceedings, but it also undermines the fundamental principle that parties should present all available defense comprehensively at the earliest opportunity. The fact that this new stance emerges after seventeen years of litigation and particularly after the matter has been adjudicated at various levels including the Hon’ble Supreme Court, strongly suggests a tactical maneuver rather than a genuine legal position. The timing and nature of this contradictory stand becomes even more questionable when considering that the petitioners had multiple opportunities to raise this issue during the original trial, subsequent appeals, and most notably in their recent S.L.P. preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The timing and nature of this contradictory stand becomes even more questionable when considering that the petitioners had multiple opportunities to raise this issue during the original trial, subsequent appeals, and most notably in their recent S.L.P. preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This pattern of behavior shows a calculated strategy to introduce new elements into the case solely for the purpose of delaying its resolution, which goes against the principles of judicial efficiency and the spirit of justice. 24. The said contradictory stand now being raised by the petitioners cannot be said to be a ground which the petitioners were not aware of or they have recently come to know of such a stand and such a relationship with that of the decree holder i.e. respondent herein. It is particularly difficult to accept the petitioners assertion that they failed to raise this ground earlier due to ignorance or lack of knowledge and the extensive duration of these proceedings. This stand now raised by the petitioners under Section 47 of CPC clearly reflects a calculated strategy aimed at protracting the proceedings on some count or the other, rather than a genuine legal position emerging from newly discovered facts or circumstances. The petitioners failure to provide any satisfactory explanation for their delayed introduction of this plea, particularly when they had ample opportunity to raise it during their recent S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court severely undermines their credibility and forces this Court to draw an adverse inference regarding their intentions. Their conduct appears to be a deliberate attempt to introduce new elements into the case at this belated stage which is particularly concerning given their sophisticated understanding of legal proceedings as shown by their previous litigation history. 25. Another aspect which needs to be considered at this juncture is that in the teeth of the pleadings that the petitioners have raised in their Written Statement at the first instance and the stand now being taken in the petition filed under Section 47 of CPC, both cannot go simultaneously under any circumstances. A person cannot claim title over the property or claim ownership over the said property on one hand and at the same time project himself as the tenant of the suit schedule property. 26. A person cannot claim title over the property or claim ownership over the said property on one hand and at the same time project himself as the tenant of the suit schedule property. 26. As regards the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the firm view that the manner in which the present dispute has travelled from the year 2006 onwards and after seventeen long years of battle after the initial litigation having been concluded up till the stage of Hon'ble Supreme Court, now for the first time, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise altogether fresh ground and contention totally contrary to their pleadings and defence till now. The said ground does not seem to have too much of force inasmuch as the petitioners could either have been the owners of the property or the tenants on the said portion of land. However, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners initially raised grounds which were systematically dismissed from the Trial Court up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now, after seventeen years, the petitioners have strategically introduced new grounds attempting to establish both tenant and owner relationship which appears to be a calculated effort to extend their possession and prolong the proceedings for several more years so as to continue enjoying the possession of the suit schedule property. This conduct itself clearly illustrates a sheer abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the judgments which have been relied upon can be distinguishable on facts itself and the same cannot be applied in a straight jacket formula to the facts of the present case. 27. Further, the petitioners have miserably failed to give a plausible explanation as to what prevented them in not taking this ground on an earlier occasion; neither is their case that the said ground was because of certain compelling situations that they faced. In the absence of all these, the decision of the Execution Court cannot be found fault with. As a consequence, this Court is of the opinion that the Execution Court has not committed any error while rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners herein under Section 47 of CPC. 28. In the absence of all these, the decision of the Execution Court cannot be found fault with. As a consequence, this Court is of the opinion that the Execution Court has not committed any error while rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners herein under Section 47 of CPC. 28. As an outcome of the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, this Court has got no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion so far as the first point for consideration “whether the impugned order gets vitiated since it has been ordered at the S.R. stage”, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the compelling circumstances at which the petitioners insisted for taking up the matter even before the registration upon an out of order mentioning being made by the petitioners, it cannot be said that the impugned order would get vitiated on the ground of it being ordered at the S.R. stage. Similarly, as regards the second point for consideration “whether the Execution Court was justified in rejecting the petition filed under Section 47 of CPC”, in the light of the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs and upon hearing the contentions on either side, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Execution Court was in fact justified while rejecting the petition filed under Section 47 of CPC. The Civil Revision Petitions thus fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 29. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.