Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 720 (TS)

Banavath Sravanthi v. State of Telangana

2025-05-28

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : (T. VINOD KUMAR, J.) This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 2 nd respondent in passing the order, dt.08.03.2019, in OS.No.112 of 2010 on the file of the Agent of the Government-2 nd respondent, as being illegal and contrary to the order of this Court, dt.17.04.2013 in CRP.No.400 of 2013, with a consequential direction to the 2 nd respondent to club O.S.No.112 of 2010 and O.S.No.151 of 2011 on the file of the Special Assistant Agent to Government-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate(Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam-3rd respondent, and conduct common trial in both the suits. 2. Heard Smt K.V.Raja Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 9, and perused the record. 3. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that, the petitioner claims to have purchased land admeasuring Acres 5.00 gunts in survey No.154/JA situated at Chaperlapalli Revenue Village, Mulkalapally Mandal, Khammam District, from the 8 th respondent under an agreement of sale, dt.03.12.2009; that the 6 th respondent is also claiming the same said land having purchased the same under an agreement of sale entered into with the husband of the 8th respondent; and thus, there is a dispute between the two parties in relation to the same schedule property. 4. Petitioner further contends that the 6 th respondent has filed a suit vide O.S.No.112 of 2010 for perpetual injunction before the 2 nd respondent and after knowing the same, she also filed another suit vide O.S.No.151 of 2011 before the 3rd respondent. However, the suit filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the 3 rd respondent on 05.12.2012, while the suit filed by the 6 th respondent, though is earlier in point of time, is pending before the 2 nd respondent with regard to the same subject matter between the same parties. 5. Petitioner further contends as against the said order passed by the 3 rd respondent in OS.No.151 of 2011, she has filed CRP.No.400 of 2013 before this Court, and this Court has disposed of the said revision holding that the suit filed by the petitioner to be maintainable and transferred the suit filed by the petitioner vide OS.No.151 of 2011 to the 2 nd respondent to be tried and disposed of along with OS.No.112 of 2010. 6. Petitioner further contends that despite this Court in CRP.No.400 of 2013 had issued specific direction, the suit of the petitioner vide O.S.No.151 of 2011 was not transferred to the file of the 2 nd respondent for being clubbing with OS.No.112 of 2010 and proceeded with trial. 7. Petitioner further contends the 2 nd respondent, however, proceeded to adjudicate the suit vide O.S.No.112 of 2010 independently and noted that the 1st defendant in the said suit admitted the fact of executing agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property and also delivering possession of the same to the plaintiff therein i.e., the 6 th respondent herein. The 2 nd respondent further noted that the 6 th respondent/plaintiff and 1st defendant therein belong to schedule tribe community and the suit schedule property is situated at Chaperlapalli Revenue Village of Mulkalapally Mandal, which is an agency area, directed the 6 th respondent herein/plaintiff in the suit vide O.S.No.112/2010 and 1 st defendant therein to approach the concerned Sub-Registrar Office and get the sale deed registered, without considering the order of this Court in CRP.No.400/2013, and hence, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed the present Writ Petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent submits that the petitioner approaching this Court and obtaining an order in CRP.No.400 of 2013 has not been brought to the notice of the 2 nd respondent, before whom the suit filed by him vide O.S.No.112 of 2010 was pending. 9. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent submits that the petitioner approaching this Court and obtaining an order in CRP.No.400 of 2013 has not been brought to the notice of the 2 nd respondent, before whom the suit filed by him vide O.S.No.112 of 2010 was pending. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6 th respondent would further contend that the petitioner despite being arrayed as 4 th respondent in the suit filed by her, did not appear before the Court and also did not bring to the notice of the Court that the suit filed by her vide O.S.No.151 of 2011, is to be transferred to the file of the 2 nd respondent for being clubbed and tried along with O.S.No.112 of 2010 in terms of the order of this Court in CRP.No.400 of 2013, and as such, the petitioner not only resorted to suppression but also intentionally allowed the 2 nd respondent to proceed with the trial of the suit filed by the 6 th respondent, and thus, it is not open for the petitioner now to claim that the 2 nd respondent having failed to follow the order of this Court in CRP.No.400 of 2013 for her to approach this Court by the present Writ Petition. 10. I have taken note of the respective submissions made. 11. 10. I have taken note of the respective submissions made. 11. Though on behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that this Court in CRP.No.400 of 2013 having passed an order on 17.04.2013 clubbing the suit filed by the petitioner vide O.S.No.151 of 2011 with the suit vide O.S.No.112 of 2010 filed by the 6 th respondent herein pending before the 2 nd respondent and to be tried together, however on being queried by this Court as to whether the petitioner has filed any memo before the 2nd respondent bringing to the notice of the said authority of the order passed by this Court in CRP.No.400 of 2013 and the need to club the suit filed by the 6 th respondent herein vide O.S.No.112 of 2010 with that of the suit vide O.S.No.151 of 2011 filed by her, the counsel for petitioner initially took time to enquire as to whether any such memo is filed and in spite of the same, the 2 nd respondent having proceeded with the suit vide O.S.No.112 of 2010 independently, however, after enquiring with the petitioner fairly submitted that no such memo has been filed before the 2 nd respondent. 12. Though the petitioner had approached this Court and obtained an order in CRP.No.400 of 2013 on 17.04.2013, it is not shown to this Court what prevented the petitioner for not bringing the order of this Court to the notice of the 2 nd respondent, whereby the suit filed by the petitioner vide O.S.No.151 of 2011 before the 3 rd respondent, was directed to be clubbed and tried along with the suit filed by the 6 th respondent herein vide O.S.No.112 of 2010, which is earlier in point of time. 13. 13. Further, a perusal of the order of the 2 nd respondent, dt.08.03.2009 in OS.No.112 of 2010 would also show that the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as 4 th defendant in the aforesaid suit, did not appear therein and that the 2 nd respondent basing on the admission of the 1st defendant therein of she having entered into an agreement of sale and delivering possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the 6 th respondent herein as plaintiff, directed the 6 th respondent herein/plaintiff and the 1 st defendant therein to get the agreement of sale registered by approaching the concerned Sub- Registrar Office and also noting that the 6 th respondent herein/plaintiff and the 1 st defendant belonging to schedule tribe community and the suit schedule land is also located in agency area. 14. Since, the petitioner herself had failed to bring to the notice of the 2 nd respondent the aforesaid order of this Court in CRP.No.400 of 2013 and also having chosen not to appear before the 2 nd respondent in the suit filed by the 6 th respondent herein, it is not open for the petitioner to allege that the 2 nd respondent deciding the suit filed by the 6th respondent as plaintiff vide O.S.No.112/2010, dt.08.03.2019, without clubbing the same with the suit filed by the petitioner herein vide OS.No.151/2011, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the order of this Court in CRP.No.400 of 2013. 15. Since, the fault lies with the petitioner in not bringing to the notice of the 2nd respondent of the order of this Court in CRP.No.400 of 2013 even after lapse of 6 years, the petitioner has to suffer for her own mistakes, and for the said reason, this Court is of the view that the order of the 2 nd respondent, dt.08.03.2019 in O.S.No.112/2010, cannot be said to be illegal. 16. Thus, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.