Dismissed

Sri K. Hari Prasad, v. Sri Kothapally Murali Chary

Telangana HC23 Apr 2013CRP/1847/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for police aid in a property suit. The court held that without substantial material of interference and absence of prayer for construction, the injunction does not authorize construction, and thus the order needs no interference.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed at the stage of admission with no costs.

Sri K. Hari Prasad, Vs Sri Kothapally Murali Chary — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1847 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The revision petition is filed against the order in I.A. No.913 of 2011 in I.A. No.732 of 2011 in O.S. No.227 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Nizamabad, refusing to grant police aid.

¶5

2. According to the case of the petitioner, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction and the Court below has granted injunction in I.A. No.732 of 2011 and when the petitioner was making constructions with the schedule property, there was interference. Consequently, the application is filed for grant of police aid. The Court below after considering the material has dismissed the application.

¶6

3. The order of the Court below shows that there is no material of interference or obstruction said to have been caused. Evidently, granting of police aid is a discretionary one and there should be substantial material before the Court to come to a conclusion that the police aid is necessary and without that the order of injunction cannot be effected. It is to be noted that when the petitioner has obtained the order of injunction in I.A.

¶7

No.732 of 2011 there was no prayer that he was intending to make any constructions or has made any constructions in the property. It is only a case of request for grant of injunction with regard to the enjoyment of the property. Therefore, an order of injunction with regard to the enjoyment of the property cannot give a right to the petitioner to proceed with the constructions. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the order under revision does not call for any interference.

¶8

4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.

¶9

____________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶10

Date:23.04.2013 Knl/INL

Sri K. Hari Prasad, v. Sri Kothapally Murali Chary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K. Hari Prasad, v. Sri Kothapally Murali Chary

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.Ramani IceCream Company Ltd, Vs Mrs.Vijaya Reddy

M/s Arudra Constructions Vs Salar Jung Museum

Saravana Aaawas Pvt. Ltd., Vs Smt. Parvathaneni Vijaya Rajyalakshmi

Sangavarapu Chenchu Venkata Ramachandra Prabhu Vs Jonna Seethamma

P. Subba Rao (Died) Vs The Secretary

M/s.Aditya Enterprises Vs M/s.Robo Silicon Private Limited.