IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2934 of 2022 Between:

K.Sattamma, W/o Late K.Ramaiah and four others.

… Petitioners And K.Lalitha, W/o Late K.Mahesh Kumar, and two others. … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 06.03.2024 HON’BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether her Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2934 of 2022 % 06.03.2024 Between:

# K.Sattamma, W/o Late K.Ramaiah and four others.

..... Petitioners And:

$ K.Lalitha, W/o Late K.Mahesh Kumar, and two others ....Respondents < Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri R.Gopi Mohan ^ Counsel for Respondents: Sri Bidakar Gopal ? Cases Referred:

1. 2006 CJ (SC) 353 2. (2005) 7 SCC 791

3. 2019 SCC Online TS 2060 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2934 of 2022 ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

10.11.2022, passed by the Court of XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.174 of 2019 in O.S.No.221 of 2014.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The trial Court after full-fledged trial, and on appreciating the evidence on record, passed the preliminary decree. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid I.A. praying the Court to pass final decree in pursuance of the preliminary decree by allotting 1/6^th share to them in the suit schedule property as per the Advocate Commissioner’s report.

4. The trial Court on perusing the material available on record and on hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, passed the impugned order, dated 10.11.2022, adjourning the case to 05.12.2022 for taking steps under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act and for filing the Market Value Certificate of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants approached this Court by way of filing this Civil Revision Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants contended that the trial Court erred in ordering sale of the suit schedule property in public auction, instead of partitioning the same into six equal shares and allotting one such share to the respondents/plaintiffs. He further contended that the trial Court ought not to have put the suit schedule property to public auction and on the other hand, the major share holders i.e., the petitioners ought to have been accorded opportunity to purchase the suit schedule property and hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned order of the trial Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hasham Abbas Sayyad Vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad, [2006 CJ (SC) 353], and in the said case, the question which arose for consideration is as to whether the property in suit could be put on action sale without initiating a formal final decree proceeding and the Hon’ble Supreme Court on analyzing the entire case vis-a-vis the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and other judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paras 23 and 24 observed as under:-

“23.This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by this Court in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. And another, [2005 7 SCC 791] in following terms:

We are unable to uphold the contention. The jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories. The important categories are (i) Territorial or local jurisdiction; (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) Jurisdiction over the subject matter. So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions