Allowed

Boineni Jaya Sankar, v. Kokkiripati Krishna

Telangana HC14 Mar 2011CMA/82/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an appeal against a non-speaking status quo order. It held that the lower court failed to provide reasons or clarify possession details. The impugned order was set aside, and records were sent back to the lower court for disposal with priority, directing the suit be concluded within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned status quo order set aside; records remitted to lower court for disposal within six months with top priority.

Boineni Jaya Sankar, Vs Kokkiripati Krishna — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

C.M.A. No.82 of 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appeal is directed against status quo docket order passed in I.A.No.1375 of 2004 in O.S.No.526 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Rajahmundry, dated 10.12.2004.

¶5

The appellant is the 5^th respondent and the Respondents 1 to 3 are the petitioners and the respondents 4 to 7 are the respondents 1 to 4 in the interlocutory application. For convenience sake, the parties will be referred hereafter to as they are arrayed in the interlocutory application.

¶6

The petitioners filed the suit for injunction against the respondents in respect of the property scheduled therein. They also filed the interlocutory application for granting temporary injunction in respect of the property pending disposal of the suit and the lower Court delivered the impugned order on 10.12.2004 which reads as under:

¶7

“Heard. Perused the documents and other material papers. Issue urgent notice to respondents by 27.12.2004. Till then status quo is ordered”. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶8

It is contended by the appellant that no speaking order was passed directing him to maintain the status quo of the property and proper reasons should have been given by the lower Court while ordering so.

¶9

The point for determination is whether the order passed by the lower Court is proper or not?

¶10

It is an established principle of law that even while granting status quo orders, there should be proper reasoning. Unless it is clear

¶11

as to which of the parties to the suit are in possession of the property, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion to pass such status quo order. In other words, the lower Court should have passed speaking order while directing to maintain the status quo of the property. Therefore, the order passed by the lower Court is not tenable and is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Further, due to the pendency of the C.M.A. before this Court, the corresponding suit record has been kept here by reason of which the trial of the suit has been held up. Hence, the records are directed to be sent back to the lower Court as early as possible, for the disposal of the suit.

¶13

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of order and relevant papers from this Court, by giving top priority.

¶14

_________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J

¶15

14^th March, 2011

¶16

PNV

Boineni Jaya Sankar, v. Kokkiripati Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boineni Jaya Sankar, v. Kokkiripati Krishna

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

Smt. Naseemunnisa , Durdana Naseem, Vs Union of India

Mrs. Durga Swarnalatha, Vs N.Sreekanth

G.Harinatha Rao, A1 Vs State rep by Acb

Shaik Siddiqui Vs The State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.

M/s. Sri Lalitha Devi Finance a registered Firm rep by its Vs D.Chandrasekhar Raju

Syed Ali Yawar Jaffery, Vs Smt. Syeda Amtul Sakina Abedi