Y. Vijayalakshmi v. Ashish Aggrawal

!

1,1 ,l

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE CIVIL REVISION PETITION O:3611 OF 2023 W PRESENT THE HONOUFEBLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY PetitionunderArticle22ToftheConstitutionoflMia,tosetasidethe impugnedorderofdismissalofl.ANo.1162lm23ino.SNo.z165/2018dated. OtlrcdnOZt passed by the Honourable XXVlth Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

:'f i Between:

1 Y. Viiavalakshmi. Wo Late Y.S Reddy' Aged. 56 Years, Occ Widow' {All Rl/o '

H.r.id. 6-r-r03l82lNu5o, Road No. 107c, Jubilee Hills, Hvderabad)

2. Dr. Y. Nisha Reddy, D/o Late Y.S Reddy, AS4, 90 Years, Occ Doctor' (All - nio H.r.fo. e-- z -ndiaZNuso, Road No. iolc, Juuitee Hills, Hyderabad)

3. Y. Raiiv Reddv. S/o Late Y.S Reddy, Aged. 26 Yrs' Occ' student' (All Ryo i'i - H.No.'8-2-293I'82yNU5O, Road No. 1O/C, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad) ...PETITIONERS AND Ld ,fffi, ::{lr{ 1 . Ashish Aggrawal, S/o Ratanlal, Aged. 36 Years,.Occ tusinegs. ( All.Ryo Flat No. 401, *B--Block, 4th Floor, Y.R.S Rresidency, H.No. 34-769, Barkatpura, Hyderabad)

2. Viiav Aoorawal. S/o Ratanlal, Aged. 34 Years, Occ' business. ( All R/o Flat - N6.'aot","gglo;k, 4th Floor, Y.R=.s Residency' H.No. 3-+769, Barkatpura, Hyderabad)

3. Smt. Tina Aoorawal, Wo Viiav Aqgrawal, Aged. 31 Years, Dcc. Household' ( - Alt F/o Fht N"o.401, A-Atock, 4tliFtoor, Y.R.S Residency, H.No. 3-4-769' Barkatpura, Hyderabad) .,.1 l -'{ 'l 1., ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2023 affi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affklavit filed in support of the petitlon, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order directing ihe respondents to commence trial in O.S.No. 465 of 2018 on the file of the Honourable XXVlth Additional Chief Judge, City Civil courts, Hyderabad, by this Honourable Court fixing a tirfle frame for disposal of O.S. No. 465 of 2018 Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. RAKESH SANGHI, ADVOCATE d q I :.il4h, 'r Counsel for the Respondents: SHYAM S AGRAWAL' ADVOCATE The Court made the following ORDER:

i...ilift

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY cfvrL REVISION PETITION No.3611 of 2o23 ORDER:

The challenge in the present Cirril Revision Petition is the order dated 04.09.2023, passed in I.A.No.1162 of 2023 in O.S.No.465 of 2018 on the frle of the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2.

Heard Sri Rakesh Sanghi, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shyam S Agarwal, learned counsel for respondents ald perused the record.

3.

The whole proceedings arises out of the suit for specific performance by the respondent/ plaintiff agajnst the petitioners herein. Respondent/plaintiff is tenant and the petitioners are the land lord. The suit scheduled propert5r is Flat No.4O1 on the 4th floor in the B-block, Y.R.S. Residency on proper basing municipal No.3-4-769, situated at Barkatpura, Hyderabad admeasuring 2218 Square feets. 4.

Vide the impug:ned order datedtffig.2o23, the Court below has rejected al application under order XI Rules 12

t* arld 14 read with Sections 3O arld 151 of the C.P.C. Vide the said application, the petitioners herein sought relief from the Court to pass an order directing the respondent/plaintiff to produce and fiIe in the subject suit, certain information in respect of their readiness and willingrress to purchase the said suit scheduled property which was rejected by the Court below.

5.

Considering the fact that the present C.R.P. is invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where the only scope of interference available is in the event of there being any jurisdictional error or the hnding arrived at by the Court below is erroneous. The petitioner has llled the present petition saying that the respondent/plaintiff is not in a position to purchase the property. ' Therefore, in order to frustrate the agreement, he has filed the present suit under valuing the same with a Court fees of Rs. 1. l,earned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in " Maria Margarida Fentandes antd

others Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (dead) through ,Rsr", in this regard.

6.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very purpose of frling of the said application was to ascertain whether the respondent/ plaintiff has the financial capability of paying the balance of the sale consideration. This in turn mearls that the petitioner herein, subject to the petitioner able to show his financial capability would not have arry difficulty in honouring the agreement entered in between the parties. 7.

In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, if we look into the decision that has to be arrived at by the Court below, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the course of rejecting I.A.No.1 762 of 2023. As regards, rhe judgment of " Maria Margarida Fernandes Ccsd, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said judgment has been passed in an entirely different background unlike the facts of the present case. In the instant case the intention of the 'AIR 2012 SC 1727

I petitioner seems to be to ascertain whether the plaintiff would be in a position to purchase the propert5r with the available financial capabiliry. Hence, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 8'

considering the entire facts and circumsta'ces of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be more appropriate if the Court below is directed to ensure that the trial itself is proceeded with on priority basis and conclude the matter within a period of six(6) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

9 .

The present Civil Revision petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected with the aforesaid directions. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, sh dcl sed.

S SD/. P.PADMANABHA REDDY'i ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \tYV SECTION OFFICER To,

1. XXVlth Additional Chief Judge, City Civil courts, Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRl. RAKESH SANGHI Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to SRl. SHYAM S AGRAWAL Advocate {OPUCI

4. Two CD copbs w ll //TRUE COPY// cvk NS

+r$* HIGH COURT DATED:21 11212023 '\.

'i ,),'

-1 ./:/ ,21 ot'

'( #,i+ 1 I 'ilLq 2C2+ ;) --o it ..)/ \'..^/ -!\.

ORDER

CRP.No.3611 of 2023 .I'I il CRP is rejected with the aforesaid directions.

,e.,:tE -r"f r ri i, 6.{'&e jk.

i ,