Allowed

Y.Panduranga Rao v. Cheetirala Naga Saraswathi

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Aug 2019CRP/929/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition under Article 227 sought to set aside a dismissal of a written statement under CPC Order VII Rule 11. The petitioners argued that since the earlier suit on the same subject also included a prayer for permanent injunction, which was dismissed, the lower court was incorrect in allowing the second suit to survive. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the imp

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is allowed, I.A.No.924 of 2017 is allowed, and O.S. No.21 of 2011 is rejected.

Y.Panduranga Rao Vs Cheetirala Naga Saraswathi — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.929 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 27.11.2017, by virtue of which the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda dismissed I.A.No.924 of 2017, which was filed by the petitionersdefendants, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to reject O.S. No.21 of 2011.

¶4

The lower Court, by considering that S.A.No.934 of 2012 pending in the High Court is based on the suit (O.S.No.44 of 1996) for specific performance whereas the present suit i.e., O.S. No.21 of 2011 is filed for permanent injunction, held that though the parties are same, suit schedule property is same, subject matter and cause of action are different and hence, declined to reject O.S. No.21 of 2011.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioners-defendants. Notice sent to the respondents 1 and 2-plaintiffs returned with endorsement, “unclaimed” and hence, it is deemed as proper service. Respondent No.3 is added as a proforma party.

¶6

The counsel for the petitioners submits that the relief of permanent injunction is claimed in both the suits. In O.S.No.44 of 1996, which is filed by first respondent herein and another five years prior to the present suit in O.S.No.21 of 2011, the plaintiffs therein, apart from claiming specific performance, also claimed the relief of permanent injunction. The counsel further submits that O.S.No.44 of 1996 was dismissed by the Court of Additional Senior

¶7

¶8

Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, by judgment and decree dated 16.4.2009, against which the second plaintiff therein preferred A.S.No.31 of 2009, which was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 08.6.2012 by the Court of XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the second plaintiff preferred S.A.No.934 of 2012, which also got to be dismissed by judgment dated 24.11.2017.

¶9

The judgment in S.A.No.934 of 2012 would show that the trial Court framed the issue of permanent injunction and held it in the negative. Hence, the observations of the trial Court made while dismissing I.A.No.924 of 2017 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, for rejection of O.S.No.21 of 2011 are totally incorrect. In the first instance, O.S.No.44 of 1996 is filed not only for specific performance but is also filed for permanent injunction. The subject matter in both the suits is one and the same since it is based on agreement of sale between the parties. Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

¶10

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 27.11.2017 in I.A.No.924 of 2017. Consequently, I.A.No.924 of 2017 shall stand allowed and O.S. No.21 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda is rejected. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶11

___________________ SMT T. RAJANI, J

¶12

August 01, 2019 YS

Y.Panduranga Rao v. Cheetirala Naga Saraswathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Panduranga Rao v. Cheetirala Naga Saraswathi

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

A Venugopal Chetty Vs a Vijaya Kumar

Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Com. Ltd, Guntur Dist Vs P Lakshmi, Prakasam Dist and 2 Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Guntur Dist Vs Pullela Subbaravamma, Prakasam Dist and Two Others

Gotivada Yesumery Karuna Kumari / Mery / Kavya Vs Gotivada Krishna

Potturi Sivanageswara Rao Vs Kamisetty Chennakesavulu

Biruduraju Sasi Rekha at Poranki Sasi Rekha Vs Poranki Ramachandra