Dismissed

Thotakura Vishnu Murthy, v. Mallavolu Jawaharlal

Telangana HC15 Mar 2013CRP/436/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the court dismissed the plea challenging the dismissal of an application for police aid. It held that the purpose for which the relief was sought no longer survives due to the delay and ordered the petitioner to file a fresh application after pending matters are disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file a fresh application after disposal of pending appeal in case necessity arises.

Thotakura Vishnu Murthy, Vs Mallavolu Jawaharlal — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.436 OF 2013

¶3

Dated: 15.03.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Thotakura Vishnu Murthy …..Petitioner And Mallavolu Jawaharlal …..Respondent

¶6

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.436 OF 2013

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.57 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. By order dated 3.8.2011 in I.A.No.236 of 2010 temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff and aggrieved by the same the defendant filed CMA No.5 of 2011 which is pending on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. While so, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1798 of 2011 under Section 151 of C.P.C. with a prayer to grant police aid for 10 days for cutting the Casuarina crop in the schedule property. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application that in spite of the order of temporary injunction, the defendant was obstructing him from cutting the Casuarina crop which is ripe for cutting. After hearing both the parties, the Court below dismissed the said application on 14.12.2012 and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the fact that the application was filed long back in December, 2011 seeking police aid for a specific purpose of cutting the Casuarina crop, it appears to me that the purpose for which the relief was sought does not survive as of today. It is also not known as to what happened to CMA No.5 of 2011 filed by the defendant contending that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property at all. Hence the interference by this Court is not warranted at this stage. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh application after the disposal

¶11

of CMA No.5 of 2011 in case necessity thereof arises.

¶12

Accordingly, subject to the leave granted above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶13

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

¶14

civil revision petition shall stand closed.

¶15

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶16

Date: 15.03.2013 Ivd/Ssp

Thotakura Vishnu Murthy, v. Mallavolu Jawaharlal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thotakura Vishnu Murthy, v. Mallavolu Jawaharlal

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

Sri Bade Narasingarao, Vs Smt.Koppisetti Anitha

M/s.Premeier Enterprises Vs Ponnada Deva Prakash

M/s.Premeier Enterprises Vs Ponnada Deva Prakash

Goga Naga Bhaskara Anjaneyulu Vs Goga Venkata Dhanalakshmi

Sudhir Madisetty, Vs v.Suresh

Smt P.Padmavathi , Sampurna Laxmi Vs P.Kishore