Dismissed

Chalumuri Chinnanaidu, v. Siripurapu Apparao

Telangana HC20 Apr 2012CRP/1930/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order dismisses a Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial court's refusal to permit amendment of a plaint for a mandatory injunction. The High Court upheld the impugned order, noting that since an interim injunction was in force and allegedly violated by the respondent, the petitioner should have sought specific relief under that injunction rather than filing a belated amendment applicati

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Miscellaneous Petitions closed; No order as to costs.

Chalumuri Chinnanaidu, Vs Siripurapu Apparao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1930 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.12.2011 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarapukota, in I.A.No.214 of 2011 in O.S.No.184 of 2007.

¶4

The petitioner/plaintiff, who filed the suit for permanent injunction, filed the above Interlocutory Application seeking permission to amend the plaint for insertion of relief of mandatory injunction for removal of constructions which were alleged to have been made by the respondent/defendant in ‘B’ schedule foundation, pending disposal of the suit. According to the petitioner, while the said injunction order was in force, the respondent encroached upon the eastern side foundation of his property and got constructed a wall. Hence, he sought for amendment of the plaint. The trial Court, after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, through the impugned order, dismissed the Interlocutory Application holding that the same was filed belatedly i.e., after a lapse of nearly three years nine months from the date of accrual of cause of action. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶6

Admittedly, interim injunction was in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, while the said injunction order was in force, the respondent has encroached upon the eastern side foundation of his property and constructed a wall. Since the respondent has violated the injunction order, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to invoke appropriate provisions by filing appropriate application. Without availing such remedy, the approach of the petitioner by way of this amendment application is not tenable. In view of the same, this Court

¶7

is of the view that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order.

¶8

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated: 20.04.2012 va

Chalumuri Chinnanaidu, v. Siripurapu Apparao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chalumuri Chinnanaidu, v. Siripurapu Apparao

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

Nimmakayala Srinivasulu, Vs Singamsetty Pedda Brahmaiah

Nimmakayala Srinivasulu, Vs Singamsetty Pedda Brahmaiah

Dr. K.Sabitha Vs Dr. M.Sravan Kumar

Reddipalli Satyanarayana Vs Ayyagari Venkata Subba Rao

Mungara Venkata Subbamma Vs Ambati Ramaniah

Smt.Inti Adidurga Lakshmikumari Vs Inti Venkateswara Rao