THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.2252 OF 2011 DT: 11-11-2011 BETWEEN: P.VIPLAV .. PETITIONER AND MRS.DODDA VENKATE VASANTHA SRI LAKSHMI VANI AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.2252 OF 2011 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8th December, 2010 passed in A.S.No.197 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2009 passed in O.S.No.255 of 2007 on the file of XIV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.255 of 2007. She filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioner herein and 2nd respondent restraining them not to interfere with the parking of her vehicle in the stilt area. She claims to be the owner of Flat No.401 in the fourth floor admeasuring 675 square feet along with 35 square yards of undivided share of land out of the total land of 1381 square yards of the building bearing H.No.8.3.167/11A in Survey No.137/A, Vikaspuri Colony, Near A.G. Colony, Hyderabad. She purchased the said flat under a sale deed dated 21.3.2005 from Smt.P.P.Devi who was the original purchaser from the builder. Prior to her purchase she was a tenant of the same flat. She used to park her four wheeler bearing No.AP 28 J 1299 in the stilt area. When the 1st defendant obstructed her from parking the said vehicle in the stilt area she filed the suit for perpetual injunction. The 1st defendant filed the written statement. It is pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff has no right to seek a specific demarcated area for parking her car. The trial court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 2) To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff she got herself examined as P.W.1 and marked two documents as Exs.A1 and A2. On behalf of the defendant Mr.Viplav.P was examined as D.W.1. The learned trial Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of injunction and thereby proceeded to decree the suit by a judgment dated 23.3.2009. For better appreciation, I may refer paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the judgment of the trial court, which read as hereunder: “ 10. DW.1 who is the defendant No.1 supported their case in the chief affidavit. DW.1 deposed during his cross-examination that he is staying in the pent house and he has constructed 35 flats and he is not in possession of any flat except the pent house. DW.1 deposed that the MCH did not accord any permission to construct the pent house. DW.1 denied that since he sold 35 flats he is no more the owner of the building. DW.1 deposed that the area of the apartments as well as proportionate share in the common area is transferred to the owner of the apartment under the sale deed. DW.1 admitted that as per the plan he has no right to construct the walls and instal gates in the common area. DW.1 adds that he has handed over the common things to the second defendant association. DW.1 also further stated that he has allotted the car parking area in the year 2001-2002. DW.1 also admitted that the plaintiff was a tenant of the flat No.306 prior to the purchase of the flat. DW.1 admitted that the plaintiff was allowed to park her car with the permission of her owner in the area allotted to the owner i.e. flat No.306. DW.1 admitted that he has objected to the plaintiff not to park the car because the plaintiff does not have purchased the car parking area. 11. From the cross-examination of DW.1, it is clear that there is no dispute that the plaintiff used to park her car while she was a tenant of the flat No.306. The dispute has arisen only after she purchased the flat under the original of Ex.A1. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is having four wheeler since long time. From the cross-examination of DW.1, it is clear that the defendant No.1 has objected the plaintiff for parking of a car. Absolutely, the other flat owners never raised any objection. Once the property is constructed and possession is delivered to the flat owner, the builder has no locus standi to interfere the enjoyment of the flat as well as common areas. So here the defendant No.1 and 2 have no locus standi to raise any objection with regard to parking of vehicle by the plaintiff.” Dissatisfied by the judgment and decree, D1 filed A.S.No.197 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The learned Additional Chief Judge, on appraisal of the material brought on record and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to substantiate any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial court and thereby proceeded to dismiss the appeal by a judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2010. Hence, this revision. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and also the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the 1st respondent/plaintiff purchased common area jointly and without there being any specific area being allotted to her, she cannot seek injunction against the petitioner, and therefore the trial court as well as the lower appellate court committed serious error in granting injunction against the petitioner. I do not see any substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner since DW.1, who is the witness on behalf of the petitioner, has specifically stated that he constructed the pent house without obtaining any permission from the municipal authorities and he has disposed of all the flats through different sale deeds. If there is any objection for the 1st respondent/plaintiff parking her four wheeler vehicle in stilt area, it must be from the flat owners association, which has been impleaded as the 2nd defendant in the trial court. The 2nd respondent/2nd defendant herein did not choose to resist the claim of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and granted perpetual injunction against the petitioner/D1. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and also the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Dated: 11.11.2011. ( B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.2252 OF 2011 DT: 11-11-2011 tnb