THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1192 AND 1240 OF 2011 Dated:17-10-2014
Between
Smt. Sharda Bai and another ... PETITIONERS AND Viswanath Agarwal and another .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1192 AND 1240 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners filed O.S No.3821 of 2004 in the Court of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents for the relief of declaration to the effect that the construction permission dated 03-03-2004 obtained by the 1st respondent is illegal and untenable and for perpetual injunction. The suit was decreed after contest on 04-09-2008. Aggrieved by that, the 1st respondent filed A.S No.289 of 2008 in the court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same is pending.
The petitioners contend that the 1st respondent initiated steps to obtain regularization of the unauthorized construction and that the Municipal Corporation, the 2nd respondent has rejected the same on 17-05-2010. In view of this development, the petitioners filed three applications, one to receive additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, the other to receive photocopy of the order of rejection as secondary evidence and the third one, to summon the original of the rejection order from the Municipal Corporation. The lower appellate Court dismissed the applications through common order 06-12-2010.
Hence, these two revisions.
The contention of the petitioners that permission obtained by the 1st respondent for construction of the building is contrary to law was accepted and the suit was decreed. It is no doubt true that during the pendency of the proceedings, the 1st respondent made an effort to get the unauthorized construction regularized and that the application was rejected. The necessity for the petitioners to file the documents in relation to the rejection would have arisen if only the 1st respondent made an attempt to plead before the lower appellate Court that the unauthorized construction was regularized. The record shows that he admitted the factum of the rejection of the application for regularization. Therefore, the whole effort made by the petitioners to file secondary evidence and to get the original summoned is superfluous. The lower appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter.
The C.R.Ps are accordingly dismissed. It is however made clear that in case the 1st respondent makes an attempt to plead that the unauthorized construction was regularized, it shall be open to the petitioners to place necessary record before the lower appellate Court.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 17-10-2014 ks