AMEENABEE Vs. KHALEELULREHMAN ALIAS IRFAN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Trilok Bahadur Sahagal, the counsel representing the appellants and Shri Shaik Mahmood Ali, the counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) This Appeal, as against O.S. No.322 of 1985, on the file of the 5th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, was originally filed and numbered as A.S.No. 221 of 1993, on the file of 5th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, but in view of the fact that a common judgment was delivered in both O.S. No.745 of 1982 and O.S.No.322 of 1985 and in view of the fact that as against the judgment and decree made in O.S. No.745 of 1982, an Appeal - CCCA No.60 of 1994 - was preferred to this Court, the aforesaid Appeal was transferred to be heard along with this Appeal. It is stated that the withdrawal of A.S. No. 221 of 1993 is by virtue of an order dt. 11-10-1995 passed in Transfer CMP No. 226 of 1994. CCCA MP No. 527 of 2005 was filed by Shri Shaik Mahmood Ali praying for dismissal of CCCA No. 60 of 1994 as having abated and the same was dismissed as having been abated, but, inasmuch as Transfer CCCA No. 139 of 1996 is concerned, it is still pending for hearing.

(3.) Shri Trilok Bahadur Sehagal, the learned counsel representing the appellants, had taken this Court through the pleadings of the parties in both the suits aforesaid, the reliefs prayed for, and would maintain that despite the attainment of finality in relation to the findings recorded in O.S. No. 745 of 1982, inasmuch as CCCA No. 60 of 1994 was dismissed as abated, the right to have the door way, the windows and ventilators to the house in question being unconcerned with the reliefs prayed for in the other suit, the said abatement would not come in his way and, hence, the matter may have to be heard on merits. The learned counsel also pointed out that the appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 322 of 1985 and no doubt in relation to the said property, yet another suit O.S. No. 745 of 1982 was filed praying for the relief of declaration of title, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and future mesne profits and though the parties have substantiated the same and the said matter was dismissed the findings recorded in relation to the said property, the subject-matter of the said suit may not come in the way of recording independent findings in the present Appeal. The learned counsel also pointed out to the respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled in both the suits and would maintain that the rights of the appellants to have the door way, windows, ventilators etc., may have to be protected in the facts and circumstances of the case.