Vadayala Vijay Kumar v. Smt. Beeki Deva
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERAAAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECE]UAER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTHREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY IVIL REVI N PETITION NO: 3618 OF Petition under fufide 227 of the Constitrrtion of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 08-09-2023 passed in lA.No.534 ol 2023 in OA.No.1 of 2O23 on the file of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal.
Between:
1. VADAYALA VIJAY KUMAR, S/o V. Vittal Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 35-40, G.K. Cotony, Near SBI Bank, Neredmet, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad-500094
2. Smt. VADAYATA PAVANI, W/o. Vadayata Vijay Kumar, Aged about 53 years, Occ: House wife, Rl/o. H.No. 35-40. G.K. Colony, Near SBI Bank, Neredmet, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad-500094
...Petitioner/Applicants
AND 1 . Smt. Beeki Deva, W/o.Dharavat Devaraj, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Managing Trustee of Fakir baba missron trust, Rl/o.Flat.No. 11 , Badam Apartment, 12-5-551 A, Vijaypuri, Taranaka Secunderabad
...Respondents/Petitioner/Proposed Respondent No.4
2. THE COMMISSIONER, Department of Endowments, Having its office at Boggulkunta, Abids, Hyderabad
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, Department of Endowments, Secunderabad District
4. SRI FAKIR BABA MISSION TRUST, FIAI NO 11, 12 .5 - 55/A BAdAM Apartment, Vijaypuri, Taranaka Secunderabad, Hyderabad Telangana 500017
...Respondents/Respondents
lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OA No. 112O23 on the file of Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V. VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE P. SAM KOSHY CwIL REVISION PETITION No.3618 of 2023 ORDER:
The challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition is the order dated 08.09.2023, passed in I.A.Nos.56 l ol 2023 in I.A.No.12 of 2023 and 534 of 2023 in O.A.No. I of 2023 on the lile of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2.
Heard Sri V.Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
3.
Vide the said impugned order, the Court belorv has allowed the applications impleading the respondent No.I herein as necessary party in the injunction appliczrtion and also in the O.A.
4.
Perusal of the record would shorv that respondent No.1 had moved an application to implead her in the capacity of being one of the Managing Trustees ol Fakir Baba Mission Trust who is claiming to be the ou'ner of the suit scheduled property. That on the contran', the conterrtior-rs of the petitioners herein is that the possession stands vcsted u,ith
the petitioners by virtue of sale deed executed on 20.o3.202r.
He further submitted that the petitioner also obtained permission from the GHMC and raised construCtion in the suit scheduled property for residential pulpose.
5.
During the pendency of the said dispute, the respondent No. I had moved an application for impleading as necessary party as respondent to the dispute raised by the petitioner. Respondent No. I stands impleaded in the capacit5r of Management Trustee of the aforesaid Trust supporting the case of the respondent Fakir Trust. 6.
In both the circumstances, interest of the petitioners would not adversely affect in any manner and as such, no serious prejudice also would cause to the petitioners. The present petition is one under Article 22T of the Constitution of India wherein the scope of interference is too minimal. 7.
In the given faits and circumstances of the case, the Court below has properlv appreciated and considered the contents of the I.As. u.hile passing the impugned order. This
Court also does not find any perversity or error on the part of the Court below in rejecting the implead petition. 8.
The present Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merits,. deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. It is further directed the Court below to make all efforts in proceeding with the suit and decide the sa-rne as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/- P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Telangana Endowments Tribunal' Hyderabad'
2. One CC to Sri. V. VENKATA MAYUR' Advocate [OPUCI
3. Two CD CoPies v PSR
HIGH COURT DATED:21 i,122023 i';, 1$e STAIC:
(7za re.
f,:) \,r .+;!:}J..- TFffii{r'
. . :n,.':. , 18 UAH il[I
ORDER
.ol .k !
DESPAl c,$ r!
CRP.No.3618 of 2023 .i:
ffis REJECTING THE CRP.
sofreO \CV i(.\ut