Remanded

Tadimeti Venkata Ramana v. Nadikurthi Yesu and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Oct 2019CRP/422/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge empowered the Execution Petitioner to invoke Order 21 Rule 32(5) of CPC to close prawn tanks and remove a bore well. The lower Court was set aside for erroneously distinguishing injunction types post-2002 Amendment; matter remanded for fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.04.2009 set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court to pass fresh orders considering the CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002.

Tadimeti Venkata Ramana Vs Nadikurthi Yesu and 2… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.422 of 2010

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Narsapur, West Godavari District in E.P.No.84 of 2007 in S.O.S.No.100 of 2005.

¶5

The grievance of the petitioner is that the lower Court dismissed E.P.84 of 2007 in S.O.S.No.100 of 2005, misconstruing Amendment provision of Order 21 Rule 32(1) and(5) of Code of Civil Procedure [ for short CPC], stating that Order 21 Rule 32(5) of CPC cannot be invoked by the Decree holder for closing the prawn tanks and removal of bore well arranged by the Judgment Debtors in their lands, and that prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction are distinguished, and Order 21 Rule 32(1) of CPC applies to the Decree by prohibitory injunction, if it is mandatory injunction Order 21 Rules 32(1) and (5) applies.

¶6

The Amendment Act No. 22 of 2002, which came into force with effect from 01.07.2002 given explanation of Order 21, Rule 32 (5) of CPC that “f or the removal of doubts, the expression “the act required to be done” covers both prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions .”.

¶7

In view of the said explanation, the impugned order of the lower court suffers from illegality.

¶8

¶9

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.04.2009 in E.P.No.84 of 2007 in S.O.S.No.100 of 2005 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to Trial Court to consider a fresh petition, taking into consideration of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 and to pass fresh orders.

¶10

Accordingly, petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to Trial Court.

¶11

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶12

__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

Date: 21.10.2019

PNR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶17

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 422 of 2010

¶18

Date: 21.10.2019

¶19

PNR

Tadimeti Venkata Ramana v. Nadikurthi Yesu and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tadimeti Venkata Ramana v. Nadikurthi Yesu and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. Vs G Chandra Mohan Reddy

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Meenisetty Geetha Krishna and 2 Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Uppati Sreenivas Reddy and 4 Ors.

Chinta Sangam Naidu Vs Allu Nirmala and 4 Others

Bodepudi Venkaiah Vs Atchuta Ramalingaiah

Sendhi Narasimhappagari Surya Prabhakar Vs Arya Ediga Gowda Sankshema Sangam, Regd. No. 208/08