Allowed

T Ananda Reddy v. P Lokanadha Reddy and 2 Other

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Sept 2024CRP/3130/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition set aside an order that granted an objection to an execution petition. The objector voluntarily withdrew his claim to the suit property, leading to the dismissal of his objection and revocation of the trial court order.

What did the court decide?

The objection application (E.A.No.118 of 2009) is dismissed as withdrawn and the impugned order dated 27-06-2014 is set-aside.

T Ananda Reddy Vs P Lokanadha Reddy and 2 Other — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

1
lO *

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3130 OF 2014

¶8

Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C against the Order and Decree in E.A.No.118 OF 2009 in E.P.No. 143 of 2008 in O.S.No. 214 of 2007 dated 27-06-2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur Chittoor District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

T Ananda Reddy, S/o Krishna Reddy, R/o Bangareddy Kandriga viallge Seetharamapuram post, Vadamalapet mandal, Chittoor District.

¶11

...Petitioner/Respondent No.1/Dhr

¶12

AND

¶13

P Lokanadha Reddy, S/o P.Narasa Reddy, R/o Balinaidu Kandriga village, Seetharamapuram post, Vadamalapet mandal, Chittoor District.

¶14

...Respondent/Petitioner/Objector

¶15

E.Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. E.Arumugam, (Died),

¶16

E.Venugopal, S/o E.Arumugam, aged 34 years.

¶17

(R2 and R3 not necessary in this CRP. Hence given up)

¶18

...Respondents/respondents 2 and 3/JDrs 1 & 2

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRPMP. NO: 4296 OF 2014)

¶20

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 suspend the order passed in E.A.No. 118 of 2009 in E.P.No. 143 of 2008 in O.S.No. 214 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District pending disposal of the above Civil Revision petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P GANGA RAMI REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K NARSI REDDY

¶23

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶24

APHC010444492014

¶25

[^S

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3460]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶32

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3130/2014

¶33

Between:

¶34

T Ananda Reddy ...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

P Lokanadha Reddy & 2 Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.PGANGA RAMI REDDY

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.V JAGAPATHI

¶42

2.KNARSI REDDY

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶45

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3130 of 2014

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

The present Revision is filed questioning the Order^{dated27.06.2014} in E.A.No.118 of 2009 in E.P.No.143 of 2008 in O.S.No.214 of 2007 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor^District.

¶48

The petitioner is the decree holder. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The said suit^was decreed on 23.04.2008 and E.P.No.143 of 2008 was filed seeking^{forexecutionofthe} decree. At that stage, E.A.No.118 of 2009 was filed by the Respondent No.1 claiming that he has interest in the suit schedule property, as he purchased the E.P schedule property i.e. an extent^{ofAc.2.68centsoutof} Ac.5.36 cents in Sy.No.83/1 and an extent of Ac.1.52^{centsoutofAc.3.05} cents in Sy.No.84/2 under an agreement of sale from one Lakshmikanthamma. It was also contended that a suit for specific performance of contract was filed by him and as such^{hehasinterestinthe} suit schedule property. The trial Court after considering the evidence allowed E.A.No.118 of 2009 vide Order dated 27.06.2014. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶49

While so, an affidavit was filed by the Respondent No.1/objector through his counsel Sri K. Narsi Reddy vide USR.No.77269/2024, dated 29.08.2024 stating that as per the advice of the elders^{andwellwishers} it was agreed to settle the dispute with the petitioner and therefore sought to withdraw his rights over the suit schedule property. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted below:“2. I submit that the petitioner herein has filed suit^{O.S.No.214of2007on} the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Puttur against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 12.07.2000. The Court below decreed the suit on 23.04.2008. The petitioner

¶50

¶51

¶52

herein has ifled E.P.No. 143 of 2008 for execution of the decree in O.S.No.214 of 2007. During the pendency of E.P, I have filed an application^{E.A.No.118of2009} in E.P.No. 143 of 2008 in O.S.No.214 of 2007 under Section 115 of CPC to dismiss the E.P.No. 143 of 2008 on the ground that I have got right and interest in EP schedule property. The executing Court has allowed the E.A.No.118 of 2009 and dismissed the E.P.No. 143 of 2008 by an order dated 27.06.2014. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the above CRP.

¶53

I submit that during the pendency of the above Revision petition, the well wishers of the petitioner and me have advised to settle the matter amicably. In view of the advice of the elders and well wishers of us, I have agreed to withdraw my rights in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.214 of 2007. Since, I am withdrawing my claim over the suit schedule property,^{theCRPNo. 3130of} 2014 may be allowed by setting aside the order dated 27.06.2014 passed in E.A.No.118 of 2009 in E.P.No. 143 of 2008 in O.S.No.214 of 2007.”

¶54

In view of the specific plea of the Respondent No. 1/objector that he has no interest to pursue the claim with regard to the suit schedule property in O.S.No.214 of 2007, the application filed by the Respondent No.1 i.e. E.A.No.118 of 2009 in E.P.No.143 of 2008 in O.S.No.214 of 2007 is dismissed as withdrawn and consequently, the impugned order of the^trial Court^is set-aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶55

No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶56

¶57

To,

¶58

SD/-B PRASADA RAO assistant registrar SeeiTON OFFICER

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

1 The Principal Junior Civil Judge, 2 One CC to Sri. P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. V Jagapathi, Advocate lOPUC] A Onp CC to Sri K Narsi Reddy, Advocate [OPUCJ ^ ^ Pradesh.

¶61

5'. ?he seel Stifcer, V.R Seiion, High Court of Andhra 6. Three CD Copies

vna

HIGH COURT

DATED:12/09/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.3130 of 2014

X 0 3 OCT „
lO ^
^ Current Section ^

¶69

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

T Ananda Reddy v. P Lokanadha Reddy and 2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Ananda Reddy v. P Lokanadha Reddy and 2 Other

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

Taneti Giribabu Vs Nemalakanti Yesu Mariyamma and 3 Others

Harijana Naganna Vs P. Mahaboob Basha

Bakki Israel Karunakar, Srikakulam Dist and Another Vs Tammineni Narayana Rao, Srikakulam Dist

M/S Sei Green Flash Pvt. Ltd. Chennai Vs P Maheswara Reddy, Kadapa Dist and 2 Others

M/S. Sei Green Flash Pvt. Ltd., Tamilnadu State Vs Palem Maheswara Reddy, Kadapa Dist and 2 Others

Nidadavolu Rama Tulasamma Vs Gunnmella Pattabhi (died)