1. KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.-- By this order we intend to dispose of Constitutional Petitions Nos. 196 to 1 98 of 2003 as a common points of law are involved.
2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposing off the petitions are that petitioner is owner of the Revenue Survey No. 79 measuring 600 sq.Ft. Situated near Government Hospital, Pretabad, Hyderabad and has constructed some houses on the said plot. The respondents were allowed to occupy House Nos. 27, 31 and 79 on the assurance of vacating the same after three months. After expiry of three months the respondent refused to vacate the house hence, the petitioner filed suit before learned IIIrd Senior Civil.
3. Judge, Hyderabad against the respondent for possession and mesne profit. The respondent remained absent and as such; an ex parte judgment, and decree were passed by the learned Trial Court On 30.1.2002 and while decreeing the suit for possession the learned Judge declined the relief for mense profits as claimed by the petitioner in the suit. The petitioner after passing the said judgment and decree, did not prefer any appeal against the finding recorded by learned Senior Civil Judge, declining the relief for the mense profits, hence, the said finding--of the learned Trial Court attained finality. The petitioner on 17.4.2002 filed an application under Order 47 rule 1 read with Section. 151, C.P.C. Before the 'learned Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and prayed to review the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2002. The applications were dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 6.5.2002, holding that the petitioner/plaintiff if aggrieved by the judgment in question, the proper course for him was to file an appeal against the judgment instead of filing an application for review after more than two and half months of passing of judgment. Aggrieved with the said orders, the petitioner filed revision applications Nos. 35 to 37 of 2002, which too were dismissed by the learned 1st, Additional District Judge, Hyderabad vide order dated 6.5.2003. The learned Revisional , Court held that after expiry of the appeal period the judgment and decree passed by the Trial. Court attained finality, which the petitioner now wants to assail by filing the review. Applications.
4. Heard Mr. Rafique Ahmed, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that the learned Trial Court committed error of law in disallowing the relief of mense profits on the ground that the respondents are poor person and, as such the applications for review were maintainable. Learned Advocate further argued that the petitioner gave temporary accommodation to the respondents for a specific period and after expiry of the said period since respondents have failed to vacate the premises in their possession, the petitioner was entitled for the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.
6. 2,000/- per month.
7. We have taken in consideration the arguments, advanced by the learned Advocate and also perused the record.
8. We are of the view that the orders passed by Trial Court as well as Revisional Court, dismissing the review application, are in accordance with law, warranting no interference.
9. For the foregoing reasons the Constitutional petitions are dismissed.
10. Above are the reasons for our short order dated 17.2.2004. .