Dismissed

Sunkesula Mahaboob Basha v. Sunkesula Peeran Bee

Telangana HC18 Jan 2012CRP/5866/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of a temporary injunction application. Upholding findings on appreciation of evidence regarding possession, the order directed the trial court to decide the suit within four months and dismissed the revision as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to dispose of the suit within four months; Civil Revision Petition dismissed as infructuous.

Sunkesula Mahaboob Basha Vs Sunkesula Peeran Bee — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.5866 of 2009

¶2

Date : 18-1-2011

¶3

Between: Sunkesula Mahaboob Basha .. Petitioner And Sunkesula Peeran Bee and another .. Respondents

¶4

Counsel for petitioner : Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Rajendra Bussa Counsel for respondent No.2 : --

¶5

The Court made the following:

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 7-9-2009 in C.M.A.No.13/2009 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereby he has confirmed the order dated 19-6-2009 in I.A.No.551/2009 in O.S.No.637/2009 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

¶8

The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for perpetual injunction against the respondents. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.551/2009 for temporary injunction. On being contested by the respondents, the application was dismissed by the trial court with the finding that the petitioner failed to prove that he was in possession of the petition schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. CMA.No.13/2009 filed by the petitioner, against the said order, was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. After hearing Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Bussa, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, I am of the opinion that the findings rendered by both the Courts below are based on

¶9

appreciation of evidence available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶10

Since the suit is of the year 2009, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.8072/2009 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶11

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 18-1-2012 AM

Sunkesula Mahaboob Basha v. Sunkesula Peeran Bee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunkesula Mahaboob Basha v. Sunkesula Peeran Bee

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

M/s. Vignesh Enterprises Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/s.Kallam Spinning Mills Limited Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission

G.Kornelia, Vs The Regional Manager

Apple Credit Corporation LTd., Vs T.C.I.Finance Ltd.

P. Maheshwara Chary Vs M/s. B2B Software Technologies Limited

Nandikolla Dhanaraju Vs Sri Jana Jyothi Housing India Pvt. Ltd.