Allowed

Chakka Koteswara Rao v. Annapureddy Sankara Reddy

Telangana HC7 Aug 2014CMA/1022/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal consolidating a petition seeking interim injunction. The appellate court set aside the order dismissing the petition and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal, with parties allowed to file additional evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal.

Chakka Koteswara Rao Vs Annapureddy Sankara Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1022 of 2013

¶3

J U D G M E N T: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶4

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(s) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is directed against the order and decree, dated 02.12.2013, in I.A.No.829 of 2013 in O.S.No.237 of 2013 on the file of the

¶5

XII Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur, whereunder and whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction was dismissed vacating the interim injunction granted on 06.08.2013, which was extended from time to time.

¶6

2. The grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is covered by three principles viz., 1) if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case 2) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and 3) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury.

¶7

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ petitioner contends that the appellant has prima facie case and that he is in possession of the property and therefore, the appellant is entitled for grant of a temporary injunction. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner also stated that subsequent to the dismissal of the injunction petition, the first respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and it is pending. Both the learned counsel agreed for setting aside the impugned order and to remand the

¶8

matter for fresh disposal. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Both the parties are at liberty to file additional evidence if so advised before the trial Court.

¶9

4. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.

¶10

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶11

_______ JUSTICE ANIS

¶12

Date: 07.08.2014 sr

Chakka Koteswara Rao v. Annapureddy Sankara Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakka Koteswara Rao v. Annapureddy Sankara Reddy

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

K.Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Appalaswamy Vs Government of Telangana

Mallidi Srinivasa Reddy Vs State Bank of India, Commercial Branch

Banothu Suresh Kumar S/o. B. Ramchandra Vs The State Level Police Recruitment Board

Smt. N. Ahalya Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad

Mr.G.Fazeel Ahmad Vs Smt.S.Jameela Unnisa

Smt.Singaraju Ammulu Vs The Sydicate Bank