A. Sri. Maddela Venu Gopal Goud v. Sri.Gudise Bala Krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3685 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated 09-09-2024 passed in lA No.364 of 2024 in OS No.96 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, R.R. District at Rajendra Nagar and thereby allow the application vide lA No.364 of 2024 in OS No.96 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, R.R. District at Rajendra Nagar, reject the plaint and pass Between:

'1 . A. Sri. tvladdela Venu Gopal Goud, S/o Occupation. Business, R/o H,No 2-25, Mandal, R.R.District.

2. Sri. IVladdela Prem Goud, S/o. Sri Occupation. Business, Rio.H.No.2-25, Mandal, R.R.District Sri M.Yadaiah Goud, Aged 33 years, Bandlaguda Jagir Village, Gandipet M.Yadaiah Goud, Aged 38 years, Bandlaguda Jagir Village, Gandipet Petitioner/Def. Nos. 1 &2 AND Sri.Gudise Bala Krishna, S/o. Sri.G.Venkata Swamy, Aged about - 37 years, Occ Employee, Rio. H.No.2-183, Hydershakote Village, Gandipet Mandal, R.R.District. Rep by AGPA Burra Surender Goud S/o. B.Ramulu Goud, Aged about . 37 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-25, Bandlaguda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, R.R.District Respondents/Plaintiff

IANO: 1OF2 024 Petition under Section '15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ine uign cou,t may be preased to stay of all further proceedings in oS No. 96 of 2o2i on the file of Honorable lst Additional Junior civil Judge cum Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate ot First ctiss, R R. District at Rajendra Nagar, pending disposar of the cRp, in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. payalla Chandra Shekar Counsel for the Respondents. None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOT.]RABLE SRIJUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P.No.3685 OB 2024

ORDER

Heard Mr. Chandrashekar Payalla, learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record.

2.

The present is a civil revision petition which has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated OS.OS.ZOZq passed in 1.A.No.364 of 2024 in O.S.No.96 of 2024, on the file of the leamed I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xll Additional Judicial Magislrate of the First Class, Ranga Reddy District,, at Rajendranagar. 3.

Vide the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the Order VII Rule 11 CPC petition filed by the petitioners/defendants Nos.1 and 2. The objection raised by defendant Nos.l & 2 was that the suit being barred by law. However, perusal of the record would show that the suit is filed for partition and for separate possession along with declaration to the extent of cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 27 .10.2023 .

4.

The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the defendants on 26'10'2023'

a..

The sale deed to the aforesaid extent in respect of the suii schedule property u'as also got executed on 27 .10.2023. As regards the balance of the sale consideration, the petitioners have issued a cheque, which tl-re respondent put the same for encashment on 27 .10.2023 . However, the same was got dishonoured on the ground of insultlcient funds. It is on account of this dishonouring of cheque rvhen the plaintiff found the conditions of the balance of sale consideration not being obliged by the petitioners, that compelled him to approach the Court seeking for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground ofnon-payment of sale consideration in terns of the sale deed.

5.

At this juncture, the petitioners have filed a petition under Order VII Rule 7 CPC alleging that the suit is barred by law. It is contended by the petitioners that the suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable as once the sale deed having been executed, only on the ground ol non-compliance of the condition to the sale deed so far as pavment of the balance of sale consideration is concerned, there cannot be a suit for cancellation ofsale deed. The plaintiff, if at all was aggrieved of the non-payment of the balance of sale t II i t i ;

:

= consideration, he ought to have availed other appropriate recourse under law.

6.

This Court is not inclined to accept the said contention of the petitioners for the reason that the conduct of the petitioners/ defendant Nos.l and 2 itself emphatically displays that having entered into agreement of sale followed by the sale deed being executed with a condition that for the balance of the sale consideration the petitioners/defendant Nos.l and 2 having issued cheque, however, the said cheque has got dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. As per the contents of the plaint, the plaintiff had thereafter approached the petitioners/defendant Nos.I and 2 for making arrangement of the balance of payment as the cheque had got dishonoured, which also was not honoured by defendant Nos.l and 2 which led to filing of the suit for cancellation of the sale deed.

7.

Prima facie, this Courl is the of opinion that the view taken by the trial Court cannot be found fault with, as the contention of ) the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners are based on admitted facts without there being any dispute in respect of the i

transactions and also so far as the petitioners not n-raking the entire balance ofpayment to the respondent.

8.

So far as the petition under Order VII Rule 1l CPC is concemcd, the same has to be strictly culled out from the contents of the plaint alone. That a petition under Order Vll Rule 11 CPC cannot be decided or allowed based upon the averments made in the written statement of defendants. As regards the bona fides on the part of the petitioners/defendant Nos.l and 2 is concemed, those are all matters of trial and evidence which the petiti()ners can avail during the course of the trial. Reserving the right of the petitioners to avail the same, this Court does not tind any iltegality on the paft of the trial Court in rejecting the petition under Order VIIRulellCPC.

9.

The civii revision petition is, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

l, t Consequentll,, miscellaneous petitions pending. if any, shall stand closed Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// n, \ { i*- STCTION OFFICER t r To, , '1 . The I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, R. R. District at Rajendra Nagar (with records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. Payalla Chandra Shekar, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies !

t .

i.

1i i-.

i HIGH COURT DATED.06112t2024

ORDER

CRP.No.3685 of 2024 1 Fi. E S 1"4 /s'

a (\( c 0 5 r[! 2025 zo o t PATC EO tl CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS REJECTED h