Smt. Ramija Bi, v. Smt. Sofia Bi
Case brief
What is this about?
In civil revision petitions challenging interlocutory orders denying injunctions, the Single Judge held that the suit case was at the trial stage and found regarding injunction orders were not amenable to interference under Article 227.
What did the court decide?
Petitioners directed to maintain status quo; permitted to take back the deed of cancellation of GPA produced as additional evidence for production before the trial court; suit to be tried expeditiousl
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4986 AND 5041 OF 2011
Dt: 05.09.2013
Between:- Smt.Ramija Bi and others SmtSofia Bi and others
… Petitioners and … Respondents
This Court made the following:-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4986 AND 5041 OF 2011
COMMON ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.307 of 2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The said suit is filed for perpetual injunction, claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule property, against the respondents. Petitioners also filed I.A.No.873 of 2008 seeking temporary injunction pending suit. While the petitioners claim to be the purchasers of the suit schedule property from common ancestors, under sale deed, dated 15.10.1976, being the undivided share of the vendors in the suit survey number, respondent No.1 also claims to be a purchaser from the same vendor under a similar document, dated 15.10.1976, claiming another extent of undivided share in the same survey number. While there is a serious contest between the parties as to whether the petitioners have purchased the southern side portion, both parties filed interlocutory applications for
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of courts below on interlocutory applications for injunction call for interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondents had valid legal sanction.
Appropriate course to be adopted in view of the additional evidence produced before this Court under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Smt. Ramija Bi and others
- respondent
Smt. Sofia Bi and others
Coram
VILAS V. AFZALPURKAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRP/4986/2011
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court