Allowed

Bandaru Suryanarayana, v. Basireddy Suseela

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2024CMA/297/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, setting aside a lower court's order that rejected a temporary injunction application without recording necessary findings. The court directed the trial court to decide the matter afresh within six weeks and imposed an interim stay against alienation of the property.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the injunction application was set aside. The application is remanded to the trial court to be decided afresh within six weeks. An interim stay on alienation of the proper

Bandaru Suryanarayana, Vs Basireddy Suseela — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.297 of 2024

¶5

Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C, aggrieved by the order dated 21-02-2024 passed in LA. No. 1510 of 2023 in O.S. No. 49 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble II Additional District Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District.

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bandaru Suryanarayana, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, Hindu, R/o. D.No.8/7, Gandhi Road, Proddatur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, A.P.

¶8

...Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶9

AND

¶10

Basireddy Suseela, W/o. Dr. Basireddy Venkata Ramana Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. D.No. 3/947, Y.M.R. Colony, Proddatur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, A.P.

¶11

Corporation Bank after amalgamation called and known as Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Proddatur Branch, Gandhi Road, Proddatur Town and Mandal - 516360, YSR Kadapa District.

¶12

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶14

Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant temporary injunction in my favor and against the Respondent No.1 herein, restraining her, her agents, representatives, assignees etc. from in any way alienating the Petition Schedule property to third parties.

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V. Nitesh Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri P. Rajasekhar Counsel for Respondent No.2 : None Appeared

¶16

The Court made the following:

APHC010163352024

0l¥i0

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶21

[3470]

¶22

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶23

MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶27

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 297/2024

¶28

Between:

¶29

Bandaru Suryanarayana,

¶30

...APPELLANT

¶31

AND

¶32

Basireddy Suseela and Others

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶35

1.VNITESH

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.P RAJASEKHAR

¶38

The Court made the following Judgment: (perHon’ble^{SriJusticeRaviNath} Tilhari)

¶39

This appeal was filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the Order, dated 21.02.2024 rejecting I.A.No.1510 of 2023 for grant of temporary injunction in O.S.No.49 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

¶40

The matter was argued at some length on 11.07.2024^andatthe request of learned counsels for the parties it was posted for 15.07.2024.

¶41

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application has been rejected without recording any findings by the learned trial Court on the material points of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury.

¶43

Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the defendants/Respondents submits that he has received instructions from the respondents. He fairly submits that the finding on the relevant point of prima facie case etc., has not been recorded by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the appellant’s application, and as such the matter needs to be considered afresh by the trail Court. He further submits based on instructions that till disposal of the application for temporary injunction the respondents shall not alienate the property in suit.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellant Sri V.Nitesh submits that in that case he has no grievance for the present and recording the same, appropriate orders may be passed.

¶45

Considering the aforesaid submissions and also being satisfied that the impugned order of the trial Court does not record findings on the material points while rejecting the appellant’s application for grant of temporary injunction, we are of the view that the order under challenge deserves to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order, dated^21.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in I.A.No.1510 of 2023 in O.S.No.49 of 2023 is set aside. The said application/petition shall be considered and decided by

¶46

¶47

the learned trial Court afresh in accordance with law, within a period of Six (06) weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed before the Trial Court.

¶48

Till disposal of I.A.No.1510 of 2023 in O.S.No.49 of 2023, the defendants/respondents shall not alienate the subject property. 9. We make it clear that the trial Court shall decide the application independently, without being prejudiced by the interim protection granted in this appeal.

¶49

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also

¶50

stand closed.

¶51

Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

recordsj*'^'’'°"^' Kadapa District, (with

¶56

One CC to Sri V. Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to Sri P. Rajasekhar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records)

¶59

Three CD Copies TK Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 15/07/2024

JUDGMENT + DECREE

CI/IA.No.297 of 2024

o
•\o7x t 3 AUG 202<I ,m f
^ Current Section

¶66

ALLOWING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL

¶67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶68

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶69

PRESENT

¶70

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.297 of 2024

¶71

Between:

¶72

Bandaru Suryanarayana, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business. Hindu. R/o. D.No.8/7, Gandhi Road, Proddatur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, A.P.

¶73

...Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶74

AND

¶75

Basireddy Suseela, W/o. Dr. Basireddy Venkata Ramana Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o. D.No. 3/947, Y.M.R. Colony, Proddatur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, A.P.

¶76

Corporation Bank after amalgamation called and known as Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Proddatur Branch Gandhi Road,

¶77

Proddatur Town and Mandal - 516360, YSR Kadapa District.

¶78

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶79

Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C, aggrieved by the order dated 21-02-2024 passed in I.A. No. 1510 of 2023 in O.S. No. 49 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble II Additional District Judge Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District.

¶80

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment of the Lower Court and the material papers in the

¶81

suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V Nitesh, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2.

¶82

This Court doth order and decree as follows:

¶83

That the appeal be and is hereby allowed.

¶84

That the order, dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.1510 of 2023 in O.S.No.49 of 2023 be and is hereby set aside.

¶85

That the said application/petition be considered and decided by the trial Court afresh in accordance with law, within a period of Six (06) weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed before the Trial Court.

¶86

That till the disposal of I.A.No.1510 of 2023 in O.S.No.49 of 2023, the defendants/respondents shall not alienate the subject property.

¶87

That the trial Court be is hereby directed to decide the application independently, without being prejudiced by the interim protection granted in this appeal.

¶88

That there be no order as to costs in the appeal.

¶89

¶90

Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY
JOINT REGISTRAR
<br>SECtioi^FRCER

¶91

//TRUE COPY//

¶92

The II Additional District Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Three CD Copies

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 15/07/2024

DECREE

CMA.No.297 of 2024

13 AUG 2024 m S
^ Currsni Section

¶101

ALLOWING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL

Bandaru Suryanarayana, v. Basireddy Suseela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandaru Suryanarayana, v. Basireddy Suseela

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

B. Subrahmanyam and 9 Otrs. Vs the Hon'Ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyd., and 4 Otrs.

M.Konda Reddy, Nellore Dist. Vs Prl. Secy. Pr and Rd Dept. Hyd Andanother

The National Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs Smt. Vangapandu Chandravathi

P.B. Kameshwara Rao, Visakhpatnam, Vs the Engineer-in-Chief and 3 Others

T. Savithramma and 4 Others Vs K.Venakteswarlu and 2 Others

The Divisional Railway Manager, and 3 Others Vs E. Marianna, Krishna Dist. and Another