Disposed

Jada Papayya v. Mylipalli Radhamma

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Aug 2023CMA/1276/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an appellant aggrieved by an interim injunction order in a suit instituted in 2018. Observing the suit was stalled for five years under a status quo order without trial, the Court declined to examine merits and directed the trial court to decide the suit on merits within four months, maintaining status quo till then.

What did the court decide?

The appeal disposed of; trial court to dispose suit on merits within 4 months; status quo to continue; costs not indicated.

Jada Papayya Vs Mylipalli Radhamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

C.M.A.No.1276 OF 2018

¶3

JUDGMENT :

¶4

The defendant before trial court has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2018 in I.A.No.269 of 2018 in O.S.No.84 of 2018 on the file of Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, which is filed under Order 39, Rule 1 of C.P.C seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering or entering into their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the suit.

¶5

Initially respondents herein are the plaintiffs before the trial court has filed a suit in O.S.No.842 of 2018 for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant his men and agents from ever interfering or entering into the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, an application in I.A.No.269 of 2018 has been filed seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering or entering into their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The said application was allowed on merits as prayed for

¶6

¶7

on 04.06.2018. Assailing the same, the defendant therein i.e appellant herein has preferred this C.M.A.

¶8

Heard Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Kesava Rao, learned counsel for respondents.

¶9

During hearing learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions as urged in the grounds of appeal. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that this Court has granted status quo on 31.07.2019, since then there is no progress in the suit before the court below and no trial is commenced yet under the impression that the suit is stayed.

¶10

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel, it is needless to look into merits of the case after long elapse of 5 years, as the suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction against the appellant herein restraining him and his men from interfering or entering into their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and it has to be decided on merits by conducting trial. So far, no trial has been conducted till yet. The suit has been instituted in the year 2018 and stalled the proceedings since then under the guise of status quo order. Therefore in the interest of justice, this court is inclined to dispose of the C.M.A without

¶11

¶12

touching the merits of the case and both the counsels also conceded the same.

¶13

Accordingly, the C.M.A is disposed of, while directing the court below to dispose of the suit on merits within four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the court below for disposal at earliest. Till such time, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo on date. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶15

___________________________ DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date: 17.08.2023

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶20

C.M.A.No.1276 OF 2018

¶21

Date: 17.08.2023

¶22

Jada Papayya v. Mylipalli Radhamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jada Papayya v. Mylipalli Radhamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeti Janaki Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Rajeti Janaki Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Bvl Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Director of Mines and Geology

The Branch Manager Vs Chennamsetti Srinivasa Rao

The Branch Manager Vs Shaik Moulali

Devatha Venkata Satya Naga Sridhar Subbarao, Vs Kodi Venkata Subbarao