AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Sardar Jasbeer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4; Mr. S.Balchand, learned counsel for the implead petitioner; and perused the material on record.
The petitioners herein are defendants in the suit in O.S. No.1490 of 2026 filed by the implead petitioner in I.A. No.2 of 2026 for perpetual injunction on the file of the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court') wherein initially, exparte ad-interim injunction order dated 04.06.2026 was passed in I.A. No.383 of 2026 in the suit in respect of the schedule property - I and schedule property - II therein and the same is pending. The petitioners challenged the order dated 04.06.2026 in C.M.A. No.31 of 2026. Common order dated 28.07.2026 was passed by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissing the applications in I.A. Nos.1446 of 2026 (seeking stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.1490 of 2026) and 1457 of 2026 (seeking suspension of operation of the order dated 04.06.2026 passed in I.A. No.383 of 2026 in O.S. No.1490 of 2026) in C.M.A. No.31 of 2026 filed by the petitioners. I.A. No.383 of 2026 in O.S. No.1490 of 2026 is still pending before the trial Court and counter has been filed by the petitioners (defendants therein) and the same is coming up for hearing on 01.09.2026.
As seen from the order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the trial Court in I.A. No.383 of 2026 in O.S. No.1490 of 2026, ad-interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants (petitioners herein) from raising any construction or continuing on-going construction in respect of the schedule property - I and schedule property - II therein in violation of the sanctioned building plan and mandatory setback requirements.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit filed by the implead petitioner against the writ petitioners is a frivolous suit. In fact, the construction is at the initial stage and question of violating the sanctioned plan would not arise.
However, taking note of the subsistence of the injunction order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the trial Court against the petitioners herein in I.A. No.383 of 2026 in O.S. No.1490 of 2026, this Court is of the view that the writ petition seeking for direction to the respondents-GHMC not to interfere with the schedule properties cannot be entertained.
In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to dispose of the injunction application in I.A. No.383 of 2026 in O.S. No.1490 of 2026 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear the construction undertaken by the petitioners in respect of the property bearing Municipal No.3-3-900/4/A, situated at Kuthbiguda, Hyderabad shall be subject to further orders that may be passed in I.A. No.383 of 2026 in O.S. No.1490 of 2026. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition, stand closed.