Gaddam Kavitha v. Puli Swamy
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-29. Gaddam Kavitha v. Puli Swamy. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEI/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P, NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION P ETITION N O: 1014 OF 2020 Petition Under Article 227 of constitution of lndia against the order dated 08-09'2020 in l. A. No. 108 ot 2020 in A. s. No. 57 ot 2020 on the file of the court of the V Additional District Judge at Jangoan . Between: 1 Gaddam_ Kavitha, Wo. L_ate Gaddam Narasimha, Aged 55 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. 4-9-37h, Dharmakancha, p. jangaon Z. Colony, Vilhg;, ;;J Mandal, Warangal District 2 Gaddam Abbu Ramulu, S/o. Gaddam Narasimha, Aged 53 years, Occ private Rlo. 4-9-3711, Dharmakancha, Z. p. !. m0t9ye. q,. Cotolny, . tangaon'Viffige, a;d Mandal, Warangal Drstrict 3 Gaddam Dasaia, S/o. Gaddam Narasimha, Aged 47 years, Occ private gmployee. , Rlo. 4-9-3711, Dharmakancha, Z. p. eolony, J5ngaon Village, a;J lVandal, Warangal District.
4 S]9 Gaddam Narasimha, Aged 32 years, 9gOAql Ely, Occ private employee, Rlo 4-9-3711 , Dharmakancha, Z. P. Colony, Jairgaon Village, and t,laiOrf , Warangal Distrrct. 5. Thota Sugunamma, Dio. Gaddam Narasimha, Aged 40 years, Occ Private employee, Rlo. 4-9-3711, Dharmakancha, Z. p. Colony, Jangaon Village, and [t4andal, Warangal District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Puli Swamy, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ Business, R/o. 9th ward, near Z. P. High School,Jangaon Village, and lvlandal, Warangal District 2 Puli Vijaya Laxmi, W/o. Mallesham, Aged about 40 years, Occ House Hold, Rl/o. 9th ward, near Z. P. High School, Jangaon Village, dnd Mandal, Warangal District ... RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the interim orders dated 0810912020 in l. A. 10B ot2020 in A. S. No. 57 of 2020 on the file of the V Addl.
District Judge at Jangoan by suspending the operation of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 19 of 2008 on the of the Senior Civil Judge at Jangoan. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. V. CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J. KANAK,AIAH The Court made the following: ORDER // . / ,/ / CRP No. I0l4 of 2020 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1014 of2O2O ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri D. V. Chalapathi Rao and learned counsel for respondents Sri J. Kanakaiah. 2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. O. S. No. 19 of 2OO8 was instituted in rhe Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon praying to declare the plaintiffs as owners and possessors of land to an extent of AcS. 2. 30 guntas in Survey No. 82/ 1, Yeshwanthpur village, recovery of possession and permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interference. The trial Court rendered judgment on 29. 1 . 2O2O.
The trial Court declared that plaintiffs are owners of the suit scheduled property and directed defendants to deliver possession of the said land within 60 days. It has rejected prayer to grant pcrpetual injunction. Accordinglv, decree was made. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred A. S. No. 57 of ,l'rack 2O2O in the Court ol the V Additional District Judge (ll F-ast Court) Warangal at Jangaon. 4. In the said Appeal Suit, defendants filed t. A No. 1O8 of 2020 under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 1S1 CpC praying to stay the operation of the judgment and decree. The first Appellate Court by order dated 8. 9. 2O2O allowed the Interlocutory Application staying the operation of judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 19 of 2008 dated 29. l. 2O2O. Hence, this revision by the plaintiffs CRP Na. l0la of 2020 -1 of the sutt them as owners to declare 5. Claiming directions to hand over sought further schedule land, plaintiffs possessionofthesaidland.
Thusfromtheprayerssoughtinthe there is trial Court' given by the suit ancl declaration and directlon of the suit land' in possession that defendants are no dispute grounds raised several defendants 6. In the appeal' of title trial Court including claim recorded by against the findings the legality and Gaddam Narsimha' vesting in by plaintiffs as appreciation by the plaintiffs and documents relied validity of the These are all matters for by the trial Court of evidence Appellate Court' of the first consideration T. Pendingconsideration'oftheAppeal,AppellateCourt, granted made out prima facie case that appellant having satisfied the trial Court' and decree of the judgment suspension ol 1$ appellate is whether the 8. The issue for consideration CourtCommittederrorinexercisingitsdiscretiontoglantStayof pending appeal' trial Court the judgment of operation of no reiteration 1aw and r-reeds principle of 9.
It is settled with court is co-extensive jurisdiction of the 1't appellate that the jurisdiction' the In exercise of its appellate that of the trial court' to grant applications court can consider interlocutory l"t appellate of the appeai' reliefs pending consideration appropriate if the 1"t appellate court of its discretion' 10. In exercise of the the operation order suspending passes interlocutory under Article Court' on a challenge by the trial judgment rendered is very scope of consideration of India' the 227 of theConstitution CRP No t0ll ol2020 . + narrow. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised to keep the Subordinate Courts wirhin the bounds of their jurisdiction.
When a subordinate Court has assumed jurisdiction which it does not have and has lailed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have and the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by a Court in a manner not permitted by law and grave injustice had occasioned thereby, the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and remedy the injustice caused to a party. 11. 1. In State Vs Navjot Sandhur, on review ol 1aw on the subject, Supreme Court held as under: "28. Thus the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution ol lndia gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to $,hich it exercises jurisdiction, This jurisdiction cannot be limited or t-ettered b)' any Act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the ljmjts oI their authority and to seeing that they obe1, the 1aw.
The porvers under Article 227 are tvide and can be used, to meet thc encls of jLrstice. Th. -1 can be used to interfere even rvith aD interlocLrton. order. Liou,ever the potver under Article 227 is a discretronarl, power and 1t is difficult to attribute to an order ol the High Court, sucl-r a source of power, when the High Court itself does not in terms purport to exercise any such discretionarl, power. ft is settled law that this power of jud. icia'l superintendence, und. er Artlcle 227, must be exercised sparinglg and. onlg to keep subordlnate courts d. nd. tribunals u)ithin the bound. s of their authoritg and, not to correct mere ercors, Further, where the statute bans the exercise of revisional powers it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law. ft is settled. law that the jurisd.
iction under Article 227 could ,,as not be exerclsed the cloq. k of an appeal in disguise',. (emphasis supplied) ' (2003. ) 6 scc 641 CRP Na. 10l4 oJ 2020 Petroleum Corpn' Ltd' v' Dilbahar 11,2. ln Hindustan Court held: Singh2, the Hon'ble Supreme "28. Belore rve consirier the matter further to find out the scopc anil extcl. lt of revisional jurisdiction under the above three Rent juris'liction" Control Acts, a quick observation about the "appellate necessary' Conceptualll" revisional and "rcvisional. jurisdiction" is jurisdiction but it is not vice jurisdiction is a part of appellate versa.
Both, appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are creatures of statutes No party to the proceeding has an inherent js continuation of suit or right oI appeal or revision An appeal case may be The power of the appeilate original proceeding, as the Ordinarily' court is coextensive with that of the trial court and larv but such appellate jurisdiction involves rehearing on {acts that provides for jurisd. iction may be limited by the statute itself revisional judsdiction C)n the other hand, the appellate jurisdiction but of appeliate jurisdiction, though, is a Part ordinarilyitcannotbeequatedwiththatofafull. fledgedappeal. In continuation of suit or ol original other words, revision is not Court is invoked on the proceeding. When the aid of Revisional within the permissible parameters revisional side, it can interfere provided in the statute.
It goes without saying that if a revision is providedagainStanord'erpassedbytheTribunal/appellate authodty, the decision of the Revisional Court is the operative decision in law. ln our vlew, as regards the extent of appellate or on the however' depend revisional jurisdiction, much would' jurisdiction by the statute conferring appeliate language employed jurisdiction' ancl revisional in Raja agreement with the vieu' expressed Sn 31. We are in lull l,Vorks Raja Lakshmi Dgeing Lakshmi DYeing [Sn Chettiar, (1980) 4 SCC 2591 that where Works v. RangasuamA are employed in a statute' both expressions "appeal" and "revision" is meant to convey the idea of obviously, the expression "revision" amuchnarrowerjurisdictionthanthatconveyedbytheexpression and 'revision" $'hen of two expressions "appeal" "appeal".
The use appellate power and revisional used in one statute conferring significance' without purpose and power, we think, is not inoolaes d rehearing uthlle Ordinarilg, appellate iurisdlction uhen the oJ rettisional it is not so ln tlv case iurisdiction t (2014) 9 scc 78 PnR,) (Rt) 1a t0 tl o/ :t)2t) same statute prouides the remedg bg ud. g oJ q,n ,,appea. l,' and so d. lso of a. "reuision", If thdt were so, the reuisional pouer would become coextensiue uith tho. t of the tridl court or the subordindte tribunal ruhich is neaer the case. ...... ,, (errphasis supplied) 12. As on the date ol decree, the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule land and in terms of decree they are required to hand over the possession. Having regard to undisputed fact of possession by the defendants, the first Appellate : Court exercised its discretion to grant interlocutory order pending ) appeal protecting the possession.
No case is made out for this Court to upset the view taken by the 1"t appellate Court, I do not see any error in exercising the discretion. 1 3. Learned counsel lor plaintifls further submitted that defendants received compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 2014 against the very same land declared as owned by the plaintiffs and said amount be directed to be cleposited in the Court or in a fixed deposit account. 14. Admittedly, defendants have already received compensation in lieu of iand acquisition much before judgment was rendered by the trial payment Court. of the amount of compensation on the land acquired by the Government lor widening of national highway received by defendants depends on the final adjudication in the Appeal Suit and at this stage, defendants cannot be mandated to pay the amount.
However, it is needless to observe that if the appellate Court dismisses [he Appeal Suit, plaintiffs are entitled to claim entire amount so received by the defendants with interest as determined by the t,N lt,. 1 CRP No. l011o. f)A2A l Appellate Court. However, in order to protect the interest of plaintiffs, defendants are directed not to change the physical features and /or create third party interest in the suit schedule land pending disposal of Appeal Suit No. 57 ol 2O2O on the file of the V Additional District Judge (II Fast Tract Court) Warangal at J angaon. 15. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Mrscellaneous petitions, if any stands closed. _ ,- t-> . - Sd/. K,SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( //TRUE COPY// ,{1, SECTION OFFICER To '1 . The V Additional District Judge (11 Fast Track Court ) Warangal at Jangoan 2. One CC to SRI D. V. CHALAPATHT RAO, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to SRl. J. KANAKAIAH, Advocate [OPUC] 4.
Two CD Copies N/ HIGH COURT PNRJ DATED:2911212020 Hu S T4 I€ c Z r) 1l JAil 2021 a -t\ * ORDER o12020 CRP. No,1014 COSTS WITHOUT OF THE CRP DISPOSOINC o. s'J el> 5 -? ) * ol )V \"'F-
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.