Korada Vijaya Lakshmi, Visakhapatnam Vs Konchada Bheema Rao & 2 Others

Konchada Jaya Lakshmi, W/o.Bheema Rao, Aged about 36 Years, R/o.Main Road, Kasibugga, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. --Appellant and Korada Vijayalakshmi, W/o.Tirumala Rao, Aged about 47 Years, R/o.Door No.53-23-32/13, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam and 2 others. --Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Karri Murali Krishna

¶10

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M. Kesava Rao

¶11

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1023, 1024 & 1039 OF 2011

¶12

Korada Vijayalakshmi, W/o.Tirumala Rao, Aged about 51 Years, R/o.Door No.53-23-32/13, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. --Appellant/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff

¶13

and

¶14

Konchada Bheema Rao, S/o.Ganapathi, Aged about 47 Years, R/o.Door No.10-177, Near Durga Kalamandir,

¶15

2

¶16

JS,J CMA Nos.680, 1023, 1024 & 1039/2011

¶17

Kasibugga Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District and 2 others. --Respondents/ Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri M. Kesava Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Karri Murali Krishna

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

3

¶21

1039/2011

¶22

JS,J CMA Nos.680, 1023, 1024 &

¶23

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶24

These four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, >the CPC?), are separately filed by the appellant/s challenging various Interlocutory Orders, dated 30.05.2011, passed in O.S. No. 36 of 2008 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Court, Srikakulam (hereinafter referred to as >the learned Judge, Family Court?).

¶25

2. The following tabular form clearly shows the status of the Appeals:

¶26

CMA Number & filed by whom	Preferred against which order	I.A. prayer	I.A. result	Any IO granted by this Court
680/2011, 2^ndDefendant	I.A. No.30/2010	Plaintiff filed for prosecution of the defendants for breach of injunction order, dated 16.12.2008	Partly allowed by sentencing 2^nddefendant to 15 days civil imprisonment	_Interim_stay of the civil imprisonment order is granted on 14.07.2011
1023/2011, Plaintiff	I.A. No.27/2010	Plaintiff filed for grant of temporary injunction	Dismissed by vacating ex parte temporary injunction granted on 16.12.2008	_Interim_order is granted, on 29.09.2011, taking note of the Memo, dated 28.09.2011, filed by the defendants, directing the defendants not to alienate the schedule property, until furtherorders
1024/2011, Plaintiff	I.A. No.31/2010	Plaintiff filed for grant of_interim_ mandatory injunction to remove and	Dismissed	No i_nterim_order is granted

¶27

4

¶28

JS,J CMA Nos.680, 1023, 1024 & 1039/2011

¶29

		demolish the illegal constructions made by the defendants or in alternate permit her to remove the said constructions
1039/2011 is filed by the Plaintiff to set- aside the order, Dt.30.05.2011, insofar as D-1	I.A. No.30/2010	Plaintiff filed for prosecution of the defendants for breach of injunction order, dated 16.12.2008	Partly allowed by sentencing 2^nddefendant to 15 days civil imprisonment	No i_nterim_order is granted
& D-3 are concerned and to send them to civil imprisonment

¶30

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

¶31

4. The plaintiff has filed Original Suit No. 36 of 2008 against the defendants, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants and their agents from entering the property specified in the plaint. Additionally, she filed I.A. No. 27 of 2010 (Old I.A. No. 246 of 2008), seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from entering the prescribed property, pending the disposal of the suit. The trial court initially granted an ex parte temporary injunction in I.A. No. 27 of 2010 on 16.12.2008. However, on 30.05.2011, after hearing the parties, the trial court dismissed the application, directed both parties to prepare for trial, and fixed the case for disposal within two months.

¶32

5

¶33

JS,J CMA Nos.680, 1023, 1024 & 1039/2011

¶34

5. On 28.09.2011, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted an undertaking memo, dated 28.09.2011, in C.M.A. No. 1023 of 2011; the relevant portion is extracted below:

¶35

<…………. The Respondents stated that they will not undertake the construction of the 2^nd floor over 1^st floor till appropriate final orders are passed in C.M.A. No. 1023/2011 before this Hon’ble Court. Therefore this memo is filed to the effect that the Respondents will not undertake the construction of the 2^nd Floor during the pendency of C.M.A. No. 1023/2011 .=

¶36

6. On 29.09.2011, this Court, having recorded an undertaking, directed the respondents not to alienate the suit schedule property until further orders.

¶37

7. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, all four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are consolidated and taken up for joint hearing. On 11.12.2025, during the hearing, learned counsel for both parties consented to the disposal of these appeals, with the direction to the learned Judge of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Court, Srikakulam, to decide O.S. No. 36 of 2008 within a specified timeframe.

¶38

8. Accordingly, recording the aforesaid submission and, without going into the merits of the appeals, this Court, having duly noted the Memo of Undertaking dated 28.09.2011, finds it appropriate to direct the learned Judge of the Family Court-cum-Additional District

¶39

6

¶40

JS,J CMA Nos.680, 1023, 1024 & 1039/2011

¶41

Court, Srikakulam, to dispose of the Suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible , that is, within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Furthermore, until the disposal of the Suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2008, the interim order dated 14.07.2011, granted by this Court in C.M.A. No. 680 of 2011, shall remain in effect. The respondents are also directed not to alienate the suit schedule property and to cooperate for the early disposal of the Suit.

¶42

9. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 680, 1023, 1024 and 1039 of 2011 are disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶45

Date:11.12.2025 DSH

Korada Vijaya Lakshmi, Visakhapatnam v. Konchada Bheema Rao & 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Korada Vijaya Lakshmi, Visakhapatnam v. Konchada Bheema Rao & 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Raghavendra Ferro Alloys Limited, Vs Rashtriya Ispt Nigam Limited

Barre Bhargav Vs the Union of India

B Rama Krishna Vs the Union of India

Konchada Jaya Lakshmi Vs Korada Vijayalakshmi & 2 Others

Korada Vijayalakshmi Vs Konchada Beeema Rao & 2 Ors.

Gude Nagaraju, Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation