The Court dismissed an appeal and a revision filed by plaintiffs against interlocutory orders in a property dispute. The Court noted that the underlying suit was settled and disposed of via Lok Adalath prior to the hearing, finding no cause survived for adjudication.
The appeal and the revision are dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
C.M.A.No.3487 OF 2000 & C.R.P.No.4487 OF 2000
DATED:09-10-2009
C.M.A.No.3487 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
Masavarapu Yerrayyamma & Others …Appellants AND Lekkala Hymavathi …Respondent C.R.P.No.4487 OF 2000 BETWEEN: Masavarapu Yerrayyamma & Others …Appellants AND Lekkala Hymavathi
…Respondent
This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
C.M.A.No.3487 OF 2000 & C.R.P.No.4487 OF 2000
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy)
The appeal and revision arise out of the interlocutory orders passed in I.A.No.1145 of 2000 in O.S.No.110 of 1999 and E.A.No.143 of 1998 in E.P.No.48 of 1999 in R.C.C.No.66 of 1997.
The appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit assailing the order in refusing to grant injunction against the respondent and dismissing I.A.No.1145 of 2000 in O.S.No.110 of 1999 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Whereas the revision is filed by the very same appellants for staying the execution of the decree passed in R.C.C.No.66 of 1997 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Rent Controller at Visakhapatnam wherein eviction order was passed against the respondent in the revision. Before passing the eviction order in R.C.C.No.66 of 1997 the respondent-tenant vacated and handed over the vacant possession of the property to the 1st plaintiff and therefore, the order passed in R.C.C.No.66 of 1997 was not executed against the plaintiffs. The lower Court dismissed the E.A. which is subject-matter of revision holding that nothing prevented the petitioners in the revision to file an application in O.S.No.110 of 1999 seeking stay of execution of the decree passed in R.C.C.No.66 of 1997. On dismissal of the E.A., the revision is filed.
When the appeal and revision came up for hearing on 24.9.2009 we have directed the Registry to find out the present status of the suit in O.S.No.110 of 1999, pursuant to which, it is brought to our notice that the suit itself was disposed of on 29.10.2004 before the Lok Adalath as per the terms agreed by the parties.
Now, the learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the matter has been settled between the parties before the Lok Adalath and no cause survives for adjudication either in the appeal or in the revision, which were filed against the interlocutory
orders.
Accordingly, the appeal and the revision are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. OCTOBER 09, 2009 Tsr.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal and revision are maintainable when the underlying suit was settled and disposed of in Lok Adalath before the filing of these petitions.
Masavarapu Yerrayyamma
Lekkala Hymavathi
A. GOPAL REDDY
B.CHANDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
