Disposed

Seelam Narsimha Rao v. Smt.Paruchuri Padmaja

Telangana HC24 Jan 2012CRP/5267/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to entertain the civil revision petition against an interim injunction pending the disposal of the underlying interlocutory application. It directed the lower court to consider specific evidence regarding possession and to decide the application within two months.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. The lower court is directed to consider specific evidence and dispose of IA.No.30 of 2010 on merits within two months. CMP.No.7008 of 2010 is disposed of as

Seelam Narsimha Rao Vs Smt.Paruchuri Padmaja — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.5267 of 2010

¶3

Date: 24-01-2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Seelam Narsimha Rao and 4 others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

Smt.Paruchuri Padmaja

¶9

…Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri.P.V.Ramana

¶10

Counsel for the respondent: Sri P.V.Mahesh

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶13

Civil Revision Petition No.5267 of 2010

¶14

Date: 24-01-2012

¶15

Order:

¶16

The petitioners, who are defendants in OS.No.50 of 2010 and respondents in IA.No.30 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the learned Special Assistant Agent & Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam, filed this Civil Revision Petition against

¶17

Order, dated 27-08-2010, whereby it has granted an order of injunction “till further orders”.

¶18

At the hearing, Sri P.V.Ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted, that even though his clients have filed third party affidavits of as many as four neighbouring land owners and also a bunch of cist receipts for the years 2001-2009 to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property, the lower Court has made an incorrect observation that no documents have been filed by the petitioners in support of their plea of being in possession of the said property. The learned Counsel also submitted that, a few days before the impugned order was passed, the Tahsildar, Dummugudem addressed letter bearing Rc.No.A/3701/2010, dated 24-08-2010, to the Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, wherein it is stated that the petitioners are in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶19

Sri M.R.K.Chowdary, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent, stated that this Civil Revision Petition, filed against the interim order passed pending further orders in the interlocutory application filed by his client, need not be entertained.

¶20

Inasmuch as IA.No.30 of 2010 is pending before the lower Court and it has passed an order of injunction in favour of the respondent until further orders, I am not

¶21

inclined to entertain this Civil Revision Petition at this stage. The petitioner is permitted to file the abovementioned letter of the Tahsildar, Dummugudem, stated to have been addressed to the Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam. The Court below is directed to consider the aforesaid letter and also the third party affidavits and the cist receipts, if any filed by the petitioners, besides the documents on the basis of which the respondent has been seeking relief of injunction, and dispose of IA.No.30 of 2010, on merits, after hearing the Counsel for both the parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶23

As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, CMP.No.7008 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶25

24^th January, 2012 LUR

¶26

ion

Seelam Narsimha Rao v. Smt.Paruchuri Padmaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seelam Narsimha Rao v. Smt.Paruchuri Padmaja

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

Vijaya Bank,Malakpet Branch, Vs Shaik mohinuddin

M/S Srinivasa Deluxe Theaatre Ongole Vs Dy.Comm. (C.T.) (Fac) Guntur E.Tax.Apple

Veeramani and Another Vs Mumtaz Ali , Mumtaz Ahmed and 2 Others

Sri Sai Agencies Vs Hugulothu Sridevi

Nagalla Narasimha Rao Vs Penubally Rami Setty

P. Lakshmi Vs Satti Bapayamma