Partly allowed

K. Ashok Kumar v. Smt. G. Pramila

Telangana HC10 Jun 2014CMA/39/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Nalgonda Bench allowed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals partly. The High Court modified the interim injunction order, directing the appellant (Defendant No.6) not to alienate or encumber specific flats held in trust during the pendency of the underlying suit.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed; the injunction order is modified to restrain the appellant from alienating or encumbering specific flats.

K. Ashok Kumar Vs Smt. G. Pramila — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.39 & 40 OF 2014

¶4

COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’), are directed against the order and decree, dated 18.10.2012, in I.A.Nos.2469 and 2470 of 2007 in O.S.No.1055 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar whereunder and whereby the petitions filed by respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining defendant Nos.4 to 7 from alienating, mortgaging, encumbering or leasing out Schedule IV-A to VI-D properties; and against defendant Nos.5, 6, 85, 86 and 74 not to alienate or mortgage or encumber the property under Schedule VII-A to VII-C and VIII to XI properties, were allowed.

¶6

2. The appellant herein is defendant No.6 in the suit. Originally, injunction was granted by the V Additional District Court, Rangareddy District. Challenging the same, defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7 filed C.M.A.No.283 of 2013 whereas defendant Nos.5, 74, 85 and 86 filed C.M.A.No.284 of 2013. Since the interests of the appellant were not protected in those C.M.As, he filed the present appeals.

¶7

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

¶8

4. Even according to the plaint, 1/16^th share of defendant No.6 comes to 1981 sq.feet in respect of Schedule IV-C, V-C and VI-C properties. To safeguard the interests of plaintiff, Flat No.204 in

¶9

Schedule IV-C property to an extent of 1165 sq.ft. and Flat No.214 of Schedule V-C property to an extent of 816 sq.ft. are kept on hold without alienation till disposal of the suit. A similar order was passed when the other defendants filed C.M.A.Nos.283 and 284 of 2013 before this Court vide order, dated 22.8.2013. Therefore, we pass the similar order to protect the interests of the plaintiff in Schedule IV-C, V- C and VI-C properties, as mentioned in the schedule of properties. The order of injunction in respect of the above properties is modified to the extent that the appellant/ defendant No.6 shall not alienate or otherwise create any encumbrance in respect of Flat Nos.204 and 214 in Schedule IV-C and V-C properties respectively.

¶10

5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals shall stand closed.

¶11

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶12

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶13

Date: 10.6.2014 AMD

¶14

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.39 & 40 OF 2014

¶16

Date: 10.6.2014

¶17

AMD

K. Ashok Kumar v. Smt. G. Pramila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ashok Kumar v. Smt. G. Pramila

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

The Government of a.P., Vs Ammula Raj Kumar

The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Vs a. Rajesh Babu

G. Nagarajarao Vs The Director General

C. Ashok Kumar, Vs The Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and

V. Balvanth Rao, Vs The Principal Secretary

The Superintending Engineer, Vs Mir Ismail