The court upheld the sufficiency of interim protections provided in a pending suit, deemed merit examination unnecessary, and directed the lower court to dispose of the main suit expeditiously within six months.
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.
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.353 OF 2012
Date: 24.03.2014
Between:
Kanneganti Rama Krishna
… Appellant
And
Smt. M.Neelima Reddy and nineteen others
… Respondents
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.353 OF 2012
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)
The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.54/2012 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act cum Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. The suit is filed for recovery of possession as well as perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from alienating and changing the nature of the suit schedule property.
The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.110/2012 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. with a prayer to restrain the respondents/defendants from changing the nature of the plaint schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The said application was heard along with I.A.No.111/2012 filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from creating any third-party interest over the suit schedule property. By common order dated 12.03.2012 the Court below dismissed both the
applications. Hence, the present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of C.P.C. so far as the order passed in I.A.No.110/2012 is concerned.
We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
Pending this appeal, though the appellant/plaintiff sought an interim relief to direct the respondents/defendants not to alter the features of the suit schedule property and not to alienate the same, this Court by order dated 25.04.2012 dismissed the said applications. However it was
observed as under:
“Any dealing with the property by the parties to the lis is subject in any event, to the result of the l i s as the suit is pending for adjudication.”
In the light of the said observations, it appears to us that the interest of the plaintiff/appellant herein has been sufficiently protected. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the case and express any opinion on rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Instead, we deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to dispose of the main suit itself following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As already observed by this Court in the interim order dated 25.04.2012, any dealing with the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit shall be subject to result of the suit.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.
____________ G.ROHINI, J
_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 24.03.2014 Mva
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interim relief granted by lower court on 25.04.2012 sufficiently protects the appellant's interest pending disposal of the suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanneganti Rama Krishna
Smt. M.Neelima Reddy and nineteen others
G Rohini
T Sunil Chowdary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
