THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4191 OF 2011 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4217 OF 2011 Dated: 17.11.2011 In C.R.P.No.4191 of 2011: Between: Patti @ Begari Ramaiah … Petitioner And 1. Thamineedi Balaji and 5 others. … Respondents In C.R.P.No.4217 of 2011: Between: Patti @ Begari Ramaiah … Petitioner And 1. Dr. P. Mamatha and 8 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4191 OF 2011 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4217 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER : Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, these two Revision Petitions are heard together and decided by this common order. The defendant in O.S.Nos.805 & 877 of 2003 on the file of the Court of VIII-Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar is the petitioner in these two revision petitions. The said suits are filed by the respondents herein for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the schedule properties of the suits. The defendant filed written statements contesting the suit claim and on the basis of the pleadings the Court below framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as prayed for? (2) To what relief? After the plaintiffs’ evidence was over and the suits were coming up for cross-examination of D.W.1, the defendant filed I.A.No.1058 of 2011 and I.A.No.1028 of 2011 in O.S.Nos.805 & 877 of 2003 respectively with a prayer to frame the following additional issues: (1) Whether the dispute regarding title and ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule land can be decided in the subject suit which is filed for perpetual injunction simplicitor? (2) Whether the subject suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking the relief of perpetual injunction simplicitor is maintainable in the light of the dispute regarding the authenticity of the documents of title and ownership of the plaintiffs raised by the defendant? The said applications were dismissed by the Court below by separate orders dated 24.08.2011 and aggrieved by the same these two Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the defendant. While bringing to the notice of this Court that in view of the subsequent events the defendant had filed an additional written statement with the leave of the Court raising a specific plea as to the maintainability of the suit for perpetual injunction simplicitor, it is contended by Sri Bojja Tarakam, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the light of the additional pleadings it is essential to frame additional issues so as to determine the real controversy between the parties. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon ANANTHULA SUDHAKAR v. P. BUCHI REDDY[1], THOTA RAMBABU @ RAMU v. CHERUKURI VENKATESWARA RAO[2] and MADDALA SAI LAKSHMI v. MEDISETTI LAKSHMI NARASAMMA[3]. On the other hand, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 vehemently contended that in view of the admission by the defendant as to the possession of the plaintiffs no complicated questions are involved in the suit and therefore the Court below had rightly declined to frame the additional issues. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that having regard to the subsequent suit filed by the defendant for declaration of title, the present application is nothing but to protract the litigation. I have also heard Sri S. Shiva Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 8 and 9. Out of the additional issues sought to be framed by the defendant, the Issue No.1 apparently relates to the dispute regarding title and ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule land. Since the defendant has already filed a comprehensive suit being O.S.No.821 of 2010 for declaration of title, as rightly held by the Court below it is not necessary for the Court to go into the question of title in the present suits filed for injunction simplicitor. However, so far as the proposed Issue No.2 is concerned, in the additional written statement filed by the defendant a specific plea was raised as to the maintainability of the suit for perpetual injunction simplicitor. In the light of the said specific plea, it is necessary to frame a specific issue so as to enable the Court to focus upon the controversy between the parties. The Court below, in my considered opinion, was not justified in declining to frame an additional issue so far as the maintainability of the suit for injunction simplicitor. Accordingly the orders under Revision are modified and I.A.No.1058 of 2011 and I.A.No.1028 of 2011 in O.S.Nos.805 & 877 of 2003 are allowed in part framing an additional issue as under: “ Whether the subject suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of perpetual injunction simplicitor is maintainable in the light of the dispute regarding the authenticity of the documents of title and ownership of the plaintiffs raised by the defendant? ” Both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.11.2011 gbs [1] AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033 [2] 2005 (5) ALT 278 (D.B.) [3] 2006 (3) ALT 708 (D.B.)