This order dismisses a civil revision petition filed by a plaintiff challenging the Senior Civil Judge's reversal of an interim injunction. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the appellate court's consideration of the conflicting ownership certificates and rejection of the petitioner's claim.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4973 OF 2012
Between: S. Sai Prakash … Petitioner V/s. Md.Likoddin & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Damodar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A.Vishnuvardhan Reddy The Court made the following : [order follows].
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4973 OF 2012.
O R D E R :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 04-6-2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool in CMA.No. 2 of 2012, reversing the order dated 15-2-2012 passed in IA.No.116 of 2010 in OS.No.32 of 2010 on the file of the Court Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnol, Mahbubnagar district.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed OS.No. 32 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool for injunction. Pending disposal of the suit, he filed IA.No.116 of 2012 seeking interim injunction. The learned Junior Civil Judge by order dated 15-2-2012 granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the respondents filed CMA.No.2 of 2012. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, by order dated 04-6-2012 allowed CMA.No.2 of 2012. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondents.
4. The point that arises for consideration is “whether there are any grounds to interfere in this Civil Revision Petition ?”
5. As seen from the order in IA.No.116 of 2012 dated 15-2-2012,
the petitioner herein as filed two documents. Ex.P1 is the original
ownership certificate, dated 14-6-1999 issued by the Sarpanch of the village and Ex.P2 is the letter by the petitioner himself dated 20-4-2010 to the Sarpanch of the village. The respondents have filed Ex.R-1 registered sale deed No.4113/09 and Ex.R-2 is the encumbrance certificate dated 28-5-2010. Admittedly the suit schedule property is an open plot. Both parties claim that they are in possession of the property.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have constructed a compound wall. It is his further submission that the respondents have purchased the property under registered sale deed and the encumbrance certificate also reveal their names. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sarpanch of the village has issued ownership certificate under Ex.P1. The petitioner’s case is that it is his ancestral property. Except Exs.P1 and P2
, no other documents have been filed by the petitioner. The appellate court has considered the documents filed by both the parties. I do not see any illegality or irregularity to interfere with the order passed by the appellate court. It is clear that there are no merits in this revision.
7. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
____________________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR.
14/06/2013 I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4973 OF 2012
Circulation No. 96 Date:14/06/2013 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the appellate court allowing the cross-motors appeal in the injunction matter?
Whether the petitioner's lack of additional documents and the respondents' registered sale deed warrant reversal of the interim injunction in his favor?
S. Sai Prakash
Md. Likoddin & Anr.
B. Chandra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
