THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1381 of 2021

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner – appellant aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2021 passed in I.A.No.134 of 2016 in A.S.No.161 of 2012 by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. The revision petitioner is the appellant - defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2002. During the pendency of the revision, the revision petitioner died and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 6.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that O.S.No.3 of 2002 was filed by the respondent – plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.06.1995 and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial court after full-fledged trial decreed the suit by its judgment dated 16.04.2012. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.161 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent filed a petition under Order XXIII Rule (4a) read with Section 151 of CPC to permit her to abandon her claim in respect of the suit sub-survey No.391/a of the suit schedule property situated at Managalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District. The lower Appellate Court allowed the said application. Aggrieved by which, this revision is preferred by the petitioner – respondent –

appellant.

4. Heard Sri Avancha H.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Krishna Shrawan, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was decreed by the trial court in the year 2012. When the respondent – plaintiff was abandoning the relief in respect of a portion of the suit survey number, it would amount to amending the decree, which could not be permitted under law. The respondent had not given any reasons for filing the petition abandoning part of the suit claim. The respondent filed the said application at a belated stage after a lapse of 14 years. As such, the lower Appellate Court ought to have dismissed the application. The respondent – plaintiff had given common boundaries for two separate survey numbers, even though the same were subdivided. Therefore, the boundaries given were not correct. In Ex.A1 agreement of sale, there were no sub-survey numbers for suit schedule survey numbers and prayed to set aside the order passed by the lower Appellate Court.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that only to set right the record, the petitions were filed. Appeal was continuation of the suit, no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner in allowing the application and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

7. Perused the record.

8. As seen from the affidavit filed by the respondent – plaintiff in I.A.No.134 of 2015, she stated that she filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of Survey No.319 to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas or its sub-survey Nos.319/a, 319/e, 319/ee, 319/u and 319/ru and ghut Survey No.335 to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas or its sub-survey No.335/e to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas, total admeasuring 5-00 guntas as described in the schedule of land annexed to the plaint situated at Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District. On contest, the said suit was decreed on 16.04.2012. She further submitted that the respondent – appellant preferred an appeal and while her counsel was preparing for arguments in the appeal, the petitioner – respondent noticed that at the time of filing the original suit O.S.No.3 of 2002 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, due to oversight i.e. typographical error, one of the suit sub-survey No.391/a along with other sub-survey numbers is shown against ghut Survey No.3