The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition directed against an order for auction of property in a partition suit. The court found the petition infructuous as a final decree had subsequently been passed allotting the property to the plaintiff.
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 OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH (19TH ) DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
Present:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
C.R.P.No.3819 of 2010
Between:
Kandirelli Srihari Rao
… Petitioner/D.3
And:
Kandirelli Kesavardhan Rao & 3 others
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
C.R.P.No.3819 of 2010
ORDER:
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.07.2009 in IA No.1536 of 2008 in OS No.77 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein, the said application filed by the first respondent herein/plaintiff, was allowed directing that the plaint schedule property be put to auction between the parties to the suit. The trial Court further fixed the date of auction as 17.08.2009.
2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
3. It is not disputed that subsequently final decree was also passed on 27.11.2009, where under it was directed that the suit schedule property described in the Commissioner’s blue print plan be allotted to the share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff be put in possession of the same free from obstruction with absolute right and enjoyment
and the petitioner herein/3rd defendant is at liberty to take his share of amount deposited by the plaintiff into Court.
4 . It is stated that the plaintiff has deposited an amount of Rs.4,47,020/- towards value of the share of the revision petitioner in pursuance of the orders passed by the trial court on 27.10.2009 in IA No.1536 of 2008. In view of the subsequent events, which culminated in passing of final decree, it is considered that no orders required to be passed on merits in the present revision petition, which has virtually become infructuous. It is open to the petitioner/3rd defendant to challenge the final decree passed on 27.11.2009 by way of appropriate proceedings and can raise all contentions available to him under law.
5. In the result, the civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 19.01.2011 bss
Kandirelli Srihari Rao
Kandirelli Kesavardhan Rao
G.V.Seethapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
