IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA Between:

A.Chandraprakash, S/o Baswa Reddy … Petitioner And Khaja Sabhu (died) reptd by LRs- Mohd. Abdul Gaffar and others.

… Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 03.04.2025 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 _______________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY % 03.04.2025 Between:

# A.Chandraprakash, S/o Baswa Reddy ..... Petitioner And:

$ Khaja Sabhu (died) reptd by LRs- Mohd. Abdul Gaffar and others ....Respondents < Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri R.Ranganathan ^ Counsel for Respondents: Sri A.Ravinder Reddy Learned senior counsel for Sri Singh Thakur Anoop ? Cases Referred:

1. AIR 1959 AP 349

2. AIR 2019 Ori 78

3. (2000) 5 SCC 458

4. (2017) 5 SCC 63 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2348 OF 2024

ORDER:

The order dated 16.04.2024 in I.A.No.501 of 2023 in OS.No.205 of 2005 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad is under challenge in the present Revision Petition.

2. Heard Sri R.Ranganathan, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Singh Thakur Anoop, learned counsel on record for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

3. The revision petitioner is defendant, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are plaintiffs and respondent Nos.6 to 10 herein are defendants in the suit before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiffs filed a suit in OS.No.205 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, seeking to declare them as absolute owners of the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Acs.2.39 guntas in Sy.No.34/A of Kareempur Village, Bantawaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for interim injunction against the defendant not to alienate the suit schedule property and initially, interim injunction was granted vide IA.No.3 of 2005 and thereafter, the same was made absolute on 15.02.2006. Subsequently, defendant No.3 filed an application in IA.No.811 of 2021 praying the Court to dismiss the suit by striking out all the pleadings in toto and the said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 08.08.2022 and the plaintiffs were directed to carry out amendment accordingly and to file a neat copy of the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred CRP.No.2062 of 2022, however, the same was dismissed. After dismissal of the said CRP, the plaintiffs filed IA.No.501 of 2023 under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC seeking to grant leave/permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit against the defendants on the same cause of action; that in the said application, it was averred that the suit was initially filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and due to typographical error, the earlier counsel on record has altered the same when the bundle was returned by the office with certain objections and subsequently, the suit was numbered. It was further averred that the plaintiff who originally filed the suit has no educational qualification and therefore, he has no knowledge of the draft prepared by the earlier advocate on record. It was further averred that the plaintiffs are in occupation of the suit schedule property and if the amendments are carried out, the same would affect their rights and that they cannot be put to loss or sufferance because of mistakes committed by the counsel. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought permission of the Court to w