Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order in an injunction suit. Finding no prejudice, the Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the underlying suit within six months. The pending interim suspension is vacated.
Direction to trial Court to dispose of the suit within six months; interim suspension vacated.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.559 OF 2010
ORDER:
This revision is filed challenging the order dated 30.10.2009 passed in C.M.A.No.118 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.943 of 2007 in O.S.No.1039 of 2007.
Respondents 1 to 10 herein are the plaintiffs. They filed the above suit viz., O.S.No.1039 of 2007 for perpetual injunction. In the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application viz., I.A.No.943 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.118 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Dated: 25.4.2012 Nn
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.559 OF 2010
Nn.
25.4.2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition requires interference given the lower appellate order did not cause prejudice to parties.
Whether it is just and proper to direct the trial Court to dispose of the property dispute suit within a specific timeline.
Respondents 1 to 10 (Plaintiffs)
Petitioners-Defendants
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
