Quashed

Mr.Srinivasa Venkata Sai v. Smt. Varahala Sobha Rani

Telangana HC25 Apr 2012CRP/477/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against an order in a temporary injunction suit where the plaintiffs claimed possession and defendants argued government took possession. Court held no prejudice from lower order but directed trial court to dispose of the main suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to dispose of OS No. 1221 of 2007 within six months from date of order receipt.

Mr.Srinivasa Venkata Sai Vs Smt. Varahala Sobha Rani — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.477 OF 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This revision is filed challenging the order dated 30.10.2009 passed in C.M.A.No.119 of 2008 by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, reversing the order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1168 of 2007 in O.S.No.1221 of 2007.

¶4

Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the plaintiffs. They filed the above suit viz., O.S.No.1221 of 2007 for perpetual injunction. In the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application viz., I.A.No.1168 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the schedule properties, pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed C.M.A.No.119 of 2008. The lower appellate Court disposed of the CMA directing both the parties not to change the physical features of the schedule property or alienate it till disposal of the suit. Hence, the defendants filed the present revision.

¶5

Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit against the petitioners-defendants for the relief of permanent injunction. The grievance of the petitioners-defendants is that the respondentsplaintiffs are not in possession of the schedule property and the possession of the schedule property was taken by the Government and therefore, no injunction can be granted, whereas it is the contention of the respondents-plaintiffs that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

¶6

The lower appellate Court directed both the parties not to change the physical features of the schedule property or alienate it till disposal of the suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this

¶7

Court is of the view that the order under revision does not cause any prejudice to any of the parties and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, in view of the nature of the suit, this Court feels it just and proper to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit.

¶8

Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶9

With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, interim suspension granted earlier stands vacated and the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, are closed.

¶10

____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶11

Dated: 25.4.2012 Nn

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶13

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.477 OF 2010

¶14

Nn.

¶15

25.4.2012

Mr.Srinivasa Venkata Sai v. Smt. Varahala Sobha Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Srinivasa Venkata Sai v. Smt. Varahala Sobha Rani

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

Mrs. Tadepalli Vasantha Mahalakshmi Vs Mr. Tadepalli Sekhar

Shakunthala , Suman Bai Vs B.V. Bakshi

Sri Sai Santosh Nagar Welfare Association, Vs K.Papi Reddy

Smt K.Jayashree Vs P.Sri Sai Ram

Mr. Srinivasa Venkata Sai, Vs S.Venkataiah

V.Satyanarayana Vs Gouru Venkateshwarlu