Remanded

Sri Bade Narasingarao, v. Smt.Koppisetti Anitha

Telangana HC8 Mar 2013CRP/44/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenges the dismissal of an application for police aid. The High Court held that the lower Court erred in dismissing the application merely for not availing the relief under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC without recording findings on rival possession claims. The order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and I.A. No.633 of 2012 remanded to Court below for consideration afresh after hearing both parties within six weeks.

Sri Bade Narasingarao, Vs Smt.Koppisetti Anitha — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.44 OF 2013

¶3

Dated: 08.03.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bade Narasingarao …..Petitioner And Smt. Koppisetti Anitha and 4 others …..Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.44 OF 2013

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Despite notice the respondents did not choose to appear.

¶10

As could be seen from the material available on record, by order dated 29.03.2008 in I.A.No.615 of 2008 in O.S.No.209 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhimunipatnam, the temporary injunction granted in favour of the revision petitioner/plaintiff on 13.07.2007 was made absolute.

¶11

Alleging that in spite of the said order the defendants have been interfering highhandedly with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.633 of 2012 seeking police aid for implementation of the temporary injunction granted in his favour. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 26.11.2012 and aggrieved by the same the present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below committed a grave error in dismissing the petition merely on the ground that the plaintiff failed to take recourse to the remedy available under Order 39 Rule 2A of C.P.C.

¶12

A perusal of the order under revision shows that the Court below did not go into the specific plea of the plaintiff that the defendants have been proceeding with constructions violating the order of temporary injunction and no finding was recorded on the said

¶13

issue. In fact in the counter affidavit filed by the defendants opposing I.A.No.633 of 2012, it was contended that the suit schedule land was in their possession wherein they constructed a residential house and that under the guise of the police aid, the plaintiff wanted to dispossess them highhandedly.

¶14

In view of the rival claims made by the parties, the Court below is bound to record a finding on the contentious issue. However, without recording any such finding, the I.A. was dismissed merely on the ground that the plaintiff ought to have availed the remedy under Order 39 Rule

¶15

2A of C.P.C. The procedure adopted by the Court below in my considered opinion is not in accordance with law and therefore, the order under revision is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for consideration afresh following due process of law.

¶16

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to pass an appropriate order afresh in I.A.No.633 of 2012 after hearing both the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.

¶17

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

¶18

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶19

Date: 08.03.2013 Ivd/Ssp

Sri Bade Narasingarao, v. Smt.Koppisetti Anitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bade Narasingarao, v. Smt.Koppisetti Anitha

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

Velaga Nallabbai , Nagaraju, Vs Karri Nagarajamma

M/s.Gautam Bhavan Vs Smt.Sakuntala Sahu

Dr.Ramesh Kumar Vs M.Suresh Kumar

M/s.Premeier Enterprises Vs Ponnada Deva Prakash

M/s.Premeier Enterprises Vs Ponnada Deva Prakash

Bakka Anjali Kumari Vs D.Venkateswara Rao