Y. SRI RAMULU Vs. K. VENKATESHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 27.06.2014 in I.A. No. 318 of 2014 in O.S. No. 18 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

(2.) THE respondent has filed above -mentioned suit for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner from parking car in the stilt area of the complex known as Laxmi Nivas bearing municipal No. 11 -13 -116/24, admeasuring 500 sq.yards, situated at Road No. 6, Ramakrishnapuram, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District. It is his pleaded case that he is the absolute owner and possessor of flat bearing No. 202, Laxmi Nivas, including common areas and balcony along with car parking and undivided share of 49 sq.yards in the said premises and that the petitioner is the owner of flat No. 201, second floor, admeasuring 1115 sq.feet in the same complex without right to park his car. The respondent averred that the recitals and description of the schedule property in the sale deeds of the parties would reveal that while he has got car parking rights in the stilt area, the petitioner does not have such a right. On this premise, the respondent has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner.

(3.) SRI Koneti Raja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner passionately urged that the suit is wholly misconceived as the relief claimed therein is barred by the provisions of the Act and therefore, the lower Court ought to have rejected the plaint. He has further submitted that when the plaint does not disclose clear right to sue, the Court of first instance should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to prevent bogus and vexatious litigation. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. ARIVANDANDAM v. T.V. SATYAPAL AND ANOTHER.