Dismissed

M/S.Ravi Krishna Constructions and Developers v. M/S.Ruchi Infrastructure Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Nov 2024CMA/500/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC. It acknowledged an objection regarding maintainability against an interlocutory order but distinguished reliance on a Full Bench by granting liberty to the appellant to convert the appeal into a regular appeal under Section 96 within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

CMA disposed. Liberty granted to appellant to convert CMA to regular appeal under Section 96 CPC within three weeks.

M/S.Ravi Krishna Constructions and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

<br>

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶7

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 500 OF 2023

¶8

Appeal filed under 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dt.26-06-2023 in O.S No.30/2022 on the file^{ofthecourtofthe} IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s.Ravi Krishna Constructions and Developers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Pilli Krishna, S/o. Lalabbai, Aged about 41 years, R/o. D.No.2187, Madhavapatnam, Samarlakota Mandal, Kakinada District

¶11

...Appellant/Plaintiff

¶12

AND

¶13

M/s.Ruchi Infrastructure Limited, Rep. by its Senior General Manager, Parag Choudary, S/o. V.B. Chowdary, Aged about 52 years, R/o. G-12, MIG, RSS Nagar, Indore 452 008

¶14

M/s. Dream Developers Group, Rep. by its Managing Director, Acherla Vivekanand, S/o. Dayanand, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Flat No.4, Railway Colony, Cherlapalli, Ranga Reddy District Telangana^State

¶15

Damalanka Vishnu Chakradhari, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Aged about 41 years, R/o. D.No.2-45, Repuru Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District

¶16

Mohammed Abdul Moiz Khan Durrani, S/o. Mohammed Sadiq Hussain Khan Durrani, Aged about 28 years, R/o. D.No.34-3-4, Badamvari Lane, Rajaji Street, Kakinada

¶17

Koduri Lakshmi Prasanna, W/o. Manchiraju Sarat, Aged about 34 years, R/o. D.No.1-22-14-S/9, Gandhinagar, Shram Nagar,^Kakinada

¶18

Konduri Naga Surya Aiswarya Jyothi, D/o. Sarveswara Rao, Aged about 29 years, R/o. D.No.70-1D-10, Backside of DCC Bank, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada

¶19

Konduri Venkata Satya Subbalakshmi, W/o. Sarveswara Rao, Aged about 56 years, R/o. D.No.70-1 D-10, Backside of DCC Bank, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada

¶20

Sri Gopi Sai Teja, S/o. Ajeezunnisa, Aged about 29 years, R/o. D.NO.70-3-30/B, RTC Colony, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada

¶21

Dasyam Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Madhusudhan, Aged about 47 years, R/o. D.No.2-4-5, Perrajupeta, Kakinada

¶22

lO.Masina Vinay Babu, S/o. Ramalingeswara Rao, Aged about 35 years R/o. D.No.15-11 -3, Satyaprasanna Nagar, Near Sambamurthy Nagar Kakinada

¶23

II.Naragana Sai Mallesh, S/o. Veeraju, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Camp No.GI, APSP, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada

¶24

12.Mohammed Sadiq Hussain Khan Durrani, S/o. SHK Durrani, Aged about 48 years, R/o. D.No.34-3-4, Badamvari Lane, Rajaji Street, Kakinada

¶25

...Respondents/Defendants

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} "v stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from alienation of the suit schedule properties and from creation of any third party interests and from changing the nature of the suit schedule properties in any manner.

¶28

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶29

Previously East Godavari District, now Kakinada District,^{SamarlakotaSub-} Registry Samarlakota Mandal, Venkatakrishnarayapuram Grampanchayat, Venkatakrishnarayapuram Village, Survey Nos.8/2, 8/3,8/4,8/5, 8/6, 8/7, 8/8, 8/10, 8/12, 8/13, 8/9A, 15/9, 15/6, 15/7, 158/, 15/2, 15/3, 15/4, 15/5, and 15/6, property of an extent of Ac. 11-73 cents land situated within the following boundaries:

¶30

East: PWD Canal

¶31

South: NFCL Pipeline Road

¶32

West: Pantabode

¶33

North: Land of sadanala Praveen Kumar, Y.Rambabu, Y.Peda^Veerabhadra Rao and B.Nageswara Rao

¶34

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶35

Petition under 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 recall/vacate the Order dated 30-11-2023 passed in lA No. 1 of 2023 in C.M.A No. 500 of 2023 interalia granting interim stay of all proceedings pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble IV^Additional District Judge; Kakinada dated 26-06-2023 in lA No. 1018 of^{2022inOSNo.30of} 2022.

¶36

¶37

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. VENKATA MOHAN RAO PATHAKOTA

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI. VENKAT CHALLA

¶39

Counsel for the Respondents Nos.3 & 7 to 11: M/s. SULTANA^SHAIK

¶40

Counsel for the Respondents Nos.4 & 12: SRI. N SIVA^REDDY

¶41

Counsel for other Respondents: None Appeared

¶42

The Court made the following:

■V.

APHC010465832023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶47

AT AMARAVATI

¶48

[3311]

¶49

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶50

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶51

PRESENT

¶52

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 500/2023

¶53

Between:

¶54

...APPELLANT M/s.Ravi Krishna Constructions and Developers

¶55

AND

¶56

...RESPONDENT{S) M/s. Ruchi Infrastructure Limited and Others

¶57

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶58

Venkata Mohana Rao Pathakota

¶59

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶60

1.N Siva Reddy 2.Venkat Challa

¶61

Sultana Shaik

¶62

The Court made the following:

¶63

JUDGMENT:

¶64

¶65

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order^XLIIIrule 1 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.2023 in^{O.S.No.30of2022on} the file of the Court of IV-Additional District Judge,^Kakinada. 2. At the initial stage of the hearing of the appeal, the^{learnedcounselfor} learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 12 adopted^the respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.1, who raised an arguments of the the maintainability of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against^the objection on order allowing the petition filed under Order VII,^{rule11ofCPC,ontheground}

¶66

¶67

BSB, J^% C.M.A.No.500 of 2023

¶68

that such an order is a decree within the definition of section 2(2) of CPC and thereby a regular appeal under section 96 r/w Order^XLICPC shall be filed and reliance was placed on the decision of a full bench of this High Courtⁱⁿ Molugu Ram Reddy and others Vs. Molugu Vittal Reddy^and others, MANU/AP/0406/2011 equivalent to 2011 (5) ALD 522.

¶69

It is pertinent to mention that when the CMA was filed,^theRegistry has taken an objection on maintainability, but after hearing^{thelearnedcounselfor} appellant and by placing reliance on the decision of^{aSinglebenchofthis} High Court in Ragam Yellaiah and Others Vs Chintha Shankaraiah, 2003(5) ALT 403 equivalent to 2003(3) ALD 105, objection^{oftheofficehas} been overruled upholding the maintainability of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶70

However, in view of the decision of the full bench cited supra, the learned counsel for appellant sought permission to convert the CMA as regular appeal, subject to compliance of all other^{legalformalities.}

¶71