THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.998 of 2014 Dated: 08.08.2014 Between:
Rahman Shareef Rep. by GPA Holder Mr. Mohammed Farooq .. Petitioner and Abdullah Shareef and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Srinivas Choudhary ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 28.02.2013 in I.A.No.257 of 2013 in O.S.No.135 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner is plaintiff No.3 in the above-mentioned suit filed for partition of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 to 6 filed I.A.No.257 of 2013 under Order XXIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. for recording terms of compromise between them and defendant No.1 in respect of schedule-A property comprising Ac.1-01 gts. in Sy.No.165/A of Madinaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The lower Court, by order dated 28.02.2013, allowed the said application, by observing that plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 to 6 have admitted the compromise terms for relinquishing their rights in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of schedule-A property and accordingly recorded the compromise.
Mr. Srinivas Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that no notice was given by the lower Court to his client i.e. plaintiff No.3, who is not a party to the compromise arrangement.
Under Order XXIII Rule 1 of C.P.C., at any time after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon part of the suit. In the present case, five out of six plaintiffs have abandoned their claim with regard to schedule-A property in favour of defendant No.1. In my opinion that abandonment/relinquishment is in conformity with the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. The petitioner, who is plaintiff No.3, not being a party to the said abandonment/relinquishment, is not bound by the compromise recorded by the lower Court and he can independently assert his rights in the suit.
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the guise of the compromise, defendant No.1 is seeking to raise a structure after obtaining sanction from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.
If any of the parties to the compromise seeks to act adverse to the interests of the petitioner, he is entitled to move the lower Court for appropriate relief to protect his interests.
Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as stated above, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.1375 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th August, 2014 IBL