Dismissed

Mamidi Ramana v. Ms. Jeeva Ambu Daniel

Telangana HC22 Feb 2013CRP/777/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a civil revision petition challenging a lower court's decision to grant police aid in a civil suit for perpetual injunction. The revision was dismissed as no intervention was warranted, but the court directed the main suit to be disposed of expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Direction to dispose of the main suit following due process of law expeditiously.

Mamidi Ramana Vs Ms. Jeeva Ambu Daniel — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.777 of 2013

¶3

DATE: 22.02.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mamidi Ramana …Petitioner And Mrs.Jeeva Ambu Daniel …Respondent

¶6

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.777 of 2013

¶8

O R D E R:

¶9

The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.46 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam. The respondent herein filed the said suit for perpetual injunction. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed I.A.No.499 of 2008 seeking police aid for implementation of the temporary injunction granted in his favour alleging that in spite of the order of the temporary injunction granted in I.A.No.73 of 2008, the defendant/revision petitioner had been interfering with the construction of the compound wall within the suit schedule property.

¶10

By the order under revision, the Court below allowed I.A.No.499 of 2008 and thus granted police aid as sought for. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition by the defendant.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision. Admittedly, the temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff has been in operation from 2008 onwards. Even I.A.No.499 of 2008 seeking police protection was filed long back in 2008 and the order under Revision came to be passed on 4.5.2010 granting police protection.

¶12

It is also noticed from the material available on record that though the revision petitioner/defendant filed a counter, he never evinced any interest to oppose the application and the order under

¶13

Revision came to be passed assigning valid reasons. It is also relevant to note that the main suit is of the year 2008 and it is now ripe for trial.

¶14

In the above noticed facts and circumstances, the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever at this stage. However, having regard to the fact that the main suit is of the year 2008 there shall be a direction to dispose of the main suit following due process of law expeditiously.

¶15

Subject to the above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶16

__________________ G. Rohini,J Date:22.02.2013 KLP

Mamidi Ramana v. Ms. Jeeva Ambu Daniel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamidi Ramana v. Ms. Jeeva Ambu Daniel

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

G. Subrahmanyam Vs Ch. Vijaya Kumar

Radi Balaraju, Vs Kolisi Mary

Poosapati Haranarayana Raju, S/o late Raghunadha Raju Vs Smt. T.Prabhavathi, W/o Tss Narayana Raju

Dr.Ramesh Kumar Vs M.Suresh Kumar

Dr.Ramesh Kumar Vs M.Suresh Kumar

Sri Eesarapu Appa Rao, Vs Smt.Penmatsa Satyanarayanamma