NISCHINT CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. PASUMARTHI S N MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 23-3-2009 of iii Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad in M. P. No. 417 of 2009 in C. C. No. 40 of 2002.

(2.) BACK ground facts of the case leading to filing of this revision by A-1 M/s. Nischint constructions, rep, by its Proprietrix smt. Ch. Niveditha Reddy, A-2 Smt Niveditha reddy, A-3 Ch. Baba Prasada Reddy and A-5 ch. Rajyalakshmi are: R-1 Dr. Pasumarthi s. N. Murthy owns 500 square yards and whereas his wife owns 300 square yards in the premises bearing No. 8-2-322, Road No. 7, banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Apart from 300 square yards his wife owns some other extent also in the premises. He holds GPA on behalf of his wife. A-1 is a proprietary concern. A-2 is the proprietorix of A-1 proprietary concern. A-3 is the GPA holder of A-2. R-1 entered into development agreementwith A-1 represented by A-3 who is GPA holder on behalf of the proprietorix. Ex. P-2 is the copy of the development agreement between the parties. As per the development agreement, A-3 was to construct 3 storied building (ground + 1st floor+2nd floor) in an area of 800 square yards. A-3, as a GPA holder, has to obtain necessary permissions from the municipal authorities. The development agreement speaks of the terms and conditions between the parties. The 1st respondent has given GPA in favourof A-3. A-3 had shown blue print plans, which were to be submitted to municipal authorities for necessary sanction.

(3.) IT is the contention of 1st respondent that a-3 commenced the construction work contrary to the terms and conditions of the development agreement and that A-3 as GPA holder of a-2, who is the proprietorix of A-1 firm, forged his signatures on the blue print plan showing the extent underthe development agreement as 1163 square yards. It is also his case that a-3 executed sale deeds in favour of his brothers and sister in law. A-5 is no otherthan his sister in law being wife of his brother-Sudheer Reddy. When the Corporation attempted to demolish the unauthorized constructions, A-3 basing on the GPA issued by R-1 filed a suit and obtained interim injunction. R-1 on coming to know of the suit, he himself got impleaded as a party and ultimately the suit ended in dismissal. The purchasers approached the civil court and secured interim orders initially and subsequently the orders came to be vacated. R-1 approached the State Consumer Disputes redressal Forum against A-1 to A-3, which was allowed partly and granted certain reliefs.