Disposed

K. Sulochana v. Mr. Bhagavandas

Telangana HC21 Mar 2011CMA/686/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil appeal against dismissal of an injunction application citing Order 39 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC. The lower court dismissed due to lack of proven possession. The appellate court, noting the age of both the suit and appeal, closed the matter directing the lower court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Appeal closed with direction to lower court to dispose of suit expeditiously. No order as to costs.

K. Sulochana Vs Mr. Bhagavandas — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

C.M.A.No.686 of 2006

Date: 21-03-2011

Between:

K.Sulochana

…Appellant-Respondent.

And:

Bhagavandas

…Respondent.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.686 of 2006

¶11

JUDGMENT:

¶12

It is represented on behalf of the appellant that he has to ascertain as to whether the suit is pending or not and then it is also represented on behalf of the appellant that the C.M.A. may be closed by giving a direction to the concerned lower Court to dispose of the matter as early as possible.

¶13

The C.M.A.is directed against the order of dismissal passed in I.A.No.1849 of 2004 in O.S.No.1333of 2004 dated 22.06.2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. Whereas, the appellant is the petitioner in I.A. and plaintiff in the suit, the respondent herein is the respondent in I.A. and defendant in the suit. For convenience sake, I referred the parties as arrayed in the I.A.

¶14

The I.A.was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC to grant interim injunction pending disposal of the suit against the respondent on the ground that the respondent and his henchmen etc. tried to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property within the extent of Ac.7.33 guntas in Survey No.204 at Yadgarpally

¶15

village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

Respondent filed counter totally denying the claims of the petitioner.

¶17

On behalf of the petitioner, Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, Exs.R1 to R21 were marked.

¶18

After examining the material available on record, the lower Court dismissed the I.A. on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish his possession of the property. As a result of which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the C.M.A. may be closed giving directions to the lower Court to dispose of the suit as early as possible in the interest of justice.

¶20

It is pertinent to note here that the suit has become very old and so also this appeal has been pending before this Court since long time.

¶21

Now, it has to be seen that the suit is dispose of as immediately as possible in the interest of justice.

¶22

Taking into consideration the circumstances enumerated including the representation made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is closed with a direction to the lower Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, in the interest of justice. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

_________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶24

Date: 21-03-2011. Rns

¶25

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶26

C.M.A.No.686 of 2006

¶27

Dated 21-03-2011

K. Sulochana v. Mr. Bhagavandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sulochana v. Mr. Bhagavandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Lakshman, Vs Lakshmi Traders

Pallapu Ankamma Vs The Union of India

N.Lakshman, Vs M/s. Rajasree Cotton Company

Union of India Vs Chilukuri Padmaja

The Union of India Vs C. Bujjaiah

The Union of India Vs Wardhineni Venkayamma , Arthimala Venkayamma