P MADHAVA RAO Vs. K BHAGVANDASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the President of the Nehrunagar Co-operative Housing Society, East Marredpally, Secunderabad. He is the second party-respondent in M.C. No. B-42 of 1979 on the file of the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad. H. Bhagwandass, son of late Dr. H. N. Dass is the respondent. He was the petitioner-first party in that case.

(2.) This petition is filed to revise the order of the Special Executive Magistrate dated 30/03/1981, allowing the petition of the respondent under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The respondent filed O.S. No. 55/1963 in the Court of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the petitioner and some others for declaration of his title and for possession of 3555 square yards of land in survey number 74/10, East Marredpally Village, Secunderabad Taluk, Hyderabad. That suit was resisted by the petitioner herein and others. The learned III Additional Judge, by his judgment (Ex. B-4) dated 16/02/1971, held that the respondent had failed to establish his title to the plaint schedule land and also his possession of the land on the date of the suit. He observed that the respondents documents disclosed that long before November, 1962, the land was in possession of the defendants. He also observed that the defendants had shown by positive evidence that the respondent did not have title and possession for any land to the north of boundary pillar 98. Here I may add that the suit was filed in 1960 and the plaint schedule land is stated to be situated to the north of boundary pillar No. 98. Aggrieved by the judgment the respondent filed C.C. C.A. No. 152/1972 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 2/03/1976. The judgment of the Division Bench shows that no arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on the merits of the appeal. The judgment is Ex. B-2. Questioning the judgment of the Division Bench, the respondent filed Civil Appeal No. 929/1976 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by its order dated 11/04/1979. It was observed in that judgment that since no arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on merits of the appeal in the High Court, they could not be advanced in the Supreme Court.