Dismissed

Vemiredy Amithav Reddy v. Pokala Ravi

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Nov 2024CRP/1468/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging the vacation of an interim injunction. The court held that the trial court had discretion under Order XVII rule 1 CPC to deny adjournment and there was no reason to interfere as the main application remained pending.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Vemiredy Amithav Reddy Vs Pokala Ravi — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1468 OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the order I.A.No. 176 of 2023 dated 07.02.2024 passed in O.S.No. 23 of 2023 by the learned I®' Additional District AND Sessions Judge, Nellore.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vemiredy Amithav Reddy, Minor, Represented by his guardian.^Father, Vemireddy Nagarjuna. Aged 40 Yrs, R/oNo. 16-11-539,2ND line, Donkanaidu Street, Harinathpuram, Nellore, SPSR Nellore^District,

¶10

...Petitioner / Plaintiff

¶11

AND

¶12

Pokala Ravi, S/o Lakshmi Narasaiah, Aged 44yrs,^{Kochuru,rebala} Village, BuchireddypalemMandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶13

Canara Bank, Rep. by its Manager, Nellore. Registered^{Officeat112JC} Raod,Bangalore, Rep.By its Authorised Office, Having^{branchOffice,} Nellore, Nellore Main-1 Branch (DP Code0628), Jonalagaddavari^street, Nellore Town. SPSR Nellore District

¶14

...Respondent / Defendants

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances

¶17

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay in all the proceeding prays in order dated 07.02.2024 passed in I.A.No. 176 of 2023 in O.S.No. 23 of 2023 by the learned earned I Additional District Judge, Nellore.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No 2 : SRI. HARINARAYANA K

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

APHC010267372024

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶23

[3311]

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶28

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1468/2024

¶29

Between:

¶30

Vemiredy Amithav Reddy

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

Pokala Ravi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.HARINARAYANAK

¶38

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order in I.A.No.176 of 2023 dated 07.02.2024 passed in O.S.No.23 of 2023 on the file of the Court of l-Additional District Judge, Nellore filed by the plaintiff under order XXXIX rule^1and2CPC.

¶42

The case of the revision petitioner is briefly as follows:

¶43

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed^{suitfordeclarationthat} the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for

¶44

¶45

BSi C.R.P.No.1468 of 20

¶46

granting consequential permanent injunction, restraining^{thedefendantsfrom} entering into the suit schedule property and further to cancel the registered sSale deed bearing No.1735/2023 dated 07.02.2023 which^stood in favour of the defendant and further to grant permanent injunction. Along with the suit, I.A.No.176 of 2023 was filed under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition vschedule property by the petitioner/plaintiff. On 07.02.2024, the interim order of injunction granted earlier was vacated by the trial Court by passing the following orders:

¶47

“Counsel for the respondent is reporting ready, where^{asthecounselfor} the petitioner reports not ready. Interim injunction is granted on 14.03.2023. Counter is filed long back, previous occasion also respondent reported ready.

¶48

Hence, injunction granted in this Interlocutory Application is vacated. Call on for enquiry, 22.02.2024.”

¶49

Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition^isfiled.

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that Crder XVII, rule 1 CPC enables the Court to grant a minimum of 3 adjournments,^butwithout bothering about the inconvenience of the learned counsel for the petitioner to advance arguments on that day the trial Court vacated the order granted earlier.

¶51

Order 17 - Adjournments

¶52

1 .Court may grant time and adjourn hearing.

¶53

(i)The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time

¶54

¶55

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1468 of2024

¶56

.'ir

¶57

to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing:

¶58

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted^morethan three times to a party during hearing of the suit.

¶59

(2) Costs of adjournment: In every such case the Court^shallfix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and shall^makesuch order as to costs occasioned by the adjournment or such higher costs as the Court deems fit.”

¶60

Inspite of service of notice on the respondent/1®' defendant, there has been no appearance.

¶61

The learned counsel for 2'''' respondent/2'''' defendant submitted that Order XVII rule 1 CPC enables the Court to grant three adjournments during the whole proceedings in a suit, but not for one interlocutory application. He further stated that no reason was assigned for granting adjournment and the alleged reason of ill-health is not supported by any^medical certificate. He further stated that the medical record is not filed before the trial Court to enable it to examine before taking a decision which is now under challenge. The copy of the medical record filed now before this Court along with the petition at page 32 does not advise the counsel to take bed rest and the proof is adequate to grant adjournment.

¶62

A perusal of the above said provision indicates that^{theCourthasbeen} conferred with the discretion to grant adjournment and it is not mandatory to grant any adjournment. Court has not recorded any request made for adjournment on medical grounds due to the inconvenience^{ofthecounsel.} On the other hand, the trial Court recorded that on the previous adjournment also the petitioner was not ready, though the respondent was ready. The order indicates that the counter was filed long back, and now by the impugned order, the interim injunction earlier granted was vacated. Thereby, the interim

¶63

¶64

BSh, C.R.P.No.1468 of 20,

¶65

application is still pending. It appears that the revision petitioner has not sought before the trial Court final disposal of the interlocutory application, instead approached this Court challenging the order dated 07.02.2024 vacating the ad-interim injunction granted on 14.03.2023. Even now, since the said application is pending, it is open to the petitioner to get ready for final disposal of the interlocutory application. This Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed.^{Thereshallbeno} order as to costs.

¶66

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil rejvision petition shall stand closed.

¶67

SD/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶68

¶69

The I Additional District Judge, Nellore.

¶70

One CC to Sri. Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

One CC to Sri. Harinarayana K Advocate [OPUC]

¶72

Three CD Copies

¶73

¶74

vna

¶75

HIGH COURT DATED:05/11/2024

¶76

ORDER

¶77

CRP.No.1468 of 2024

¶78

%
X 0 3 MAR 2025 ^
^ . Curreiu s^ciion

¶79

DISMISSING THE CRP

¶80

WITHOUT COSTS

Vemiredy Amithav Reddy v. Pokala Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vemiredy Amithav Reddy v. Pokala Ravi

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 Ramana Vs the State of Ap

Yaganti Seetha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. L.R. Mangalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Pachigolla Ramesh Vs Chalamlasetty Chandra Shekhara Rao

Boyalapati Sudhakar Vs Janathulla Footwear

Atluri Ram Kiran, Vs Kodali Venkata Subba Rao