SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 27978

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN


CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1360 OF 2026


Date:03-07-2026


Between

Smt. Para Padmaja Rani and others . . .…Petitioners and Smt. Gorige Chitra Devi and others ….Respondents


____________________


K. LAKSHMAN, J


Date:03.07.2 026.


vvr

T his Court passed the following:-

ORDER

Heard Mr. M. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 07.03.2026 passed in Transfer O.P.No.19 of 2024 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge – cum – Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

3. The petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.55 of 2024 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal, against the respondents, for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit schedule property i.e. the land admeasuring 7018 sq.yards equivalent to 5867.02 sq.metres in part of Sy.Nos.101,101/AA and 152 situated at Jeedimetla Village, GHMC Quthbullapur Circle and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, with the boundaries mentioned therein.

4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.408 of2024 before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Medchal, against the petitioners herein seeking declaration of easementary right of the petitioners to use the passage of the petition schedule –B property i.e. the road/passage area admeasuring 1135 sq.yards in Sy.No.152 and Sy.No. 101 of Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District with the boundaries mentioned therein, to his house and other establishments in the suit schedule- A property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from making any construction over the plaint schedule – B property; and perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein and their men from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment on the suit schedule –A property i.e. the land admeasuring Ac.0.23 guntas including House bearing No.01023/2, with SFT 1200 sft, 20 temporary huts and three sheds (one is commercial shed of running UPVC windows and doors manufacturing unit, one shed in which one water plant is running and one shed which is a cattle shed) situated in Sy.No.153 of Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District (previously in Ranga Reddy District) with the boundaries specified therein.

5. During pendency of the suits, the petitioners herein filed a petition in Tr.O.P.No.19 of 2024 under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short, ‘ the CPC’) to transfer O.S.No.408 of 2024 pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal to the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal, to be tried along with O.S.No.55 of 2024 contending that the suit schedule properties, parties are one and the same, it would avoid multiplicity of litigation.

6. Respondents opposed the said application contending that the suit schedule properties and causes of action are also different in both the suits.

7. Vide impugned order, learned trial Court dismissed the said Tr.O.P.No.19 of 2024 holding that the suit schedule properties, the parties and causes of action in both the suits are different and if they are tried separately, there will not be any likelihood of passing conflicting judgments. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present revision.

8. This Court heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents extensively.

9. Sri M.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.408 of 2024 are seeking easementary rights and it will affect the rights of the petitioners over the suit schedule property in O.S.No.55 of 2024. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, they have filed the aforesaid Transfer OP. Without considering the said aspects, the trial Court dismissed the said Transfer OP.

10. Whereas, learned

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top