This civil revision petition challenged the dismissal of a stay application regarding a perpetual injunction suit concerning land possession. The court held that no injustice would arise from construction as a public lane exists, and the petition was dismissed.
Civil Revision Petition 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1447 OF 2010
Between:
Boinpalli Geetha Rani
.....PETITIONER
AND
Karandla Sada Shiva
....RESPONDENT
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1447 OF 2010
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) is directed against the order, dated 09.03.2010, in I.A.No.1319 of 2009 in A.S.No.15 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 5 (1) C.P.C. for grant of stay of execution of decree, dated 20.10.2009, in O.S.No.58 of 2000, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial, was dismissed.
2. The respondent herein filed the Suit for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with his peaceful possession in respect of 119.88 square yards of land admeasuring 50 feet in length and 21 feet 7 inches in width situated at Municipal part locality of Jagtial town. After considering the evidence available on record, the trial Court decreed the suit.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent herein is making construction in the suit land and if stay of execution of decree, dated 20.10.2009, in O.S.No.58 of 2000 is not granted, nothing would survive in the appeal suit to decide.
4. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit injunction was granted in favour of the respondent herein. The Suit was filed for mere injunction and not for declaration of right. The appellate court after consideration of evidence available on record came to the conclusion that there were no tenable grounds or reasons to stay the execution of the decree, in view of the fact that the public lane to an extent of 21 feet was being used by the general public on which the
petitioner has no right or title over it. Therefore, even if the construction is made in the suit land, it would not cause any injustice to the petitioner herein, in view of the fact that the injunction was pending, pending the disposal of the Appeal Suit. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the appellate Court shall dispose of the Appeal Suit as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ K.C. BHANU, J
April 19, 2010 MD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the application for stay of execution of the decree.
Whether the construction activity by the respondent causes any injustice to the petitioner given the public lane usage.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Boinpalli Geetha Rani
Karandla Sada Shiva
K.C. Bhanu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
