This appeal against a temporary injunction in a partition suit was dismissed without interference. The court directed the lower court to dispose of the underlying suit within six months.
@Temp injunction order allows; directed lower court to dispose underlying suit 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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CMA.No.587 of 2014
Date:03.07.2014
Between: Gonda Hari Prasad, S/o Shankaraiah
……Appellant
And:
Naroju Virender, S/o Late Narender and four others.
..…Respondents
Counsel for the appellant: Sri G.Venkata Reddy
Counsel for the respondents: ---
The Court made the following:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CMA.No.587 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of order, dated 19.03.2014, in I.A.No.895 of 2012 in O.S.No.163 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.
I have heard Sri G.Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
For disposal of this appeal, detailed facts need not be recorded. It will suffice to note that respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein-plaintiffs have filed the abovementioned suit for partition of the suit schedule
properties. It is the pleaded case of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that their grandfather, i.e., the husband of respondent No.4 and father of respondent No.5, died and that therefore, they have succeeded to a part of the suit schedule properties. It is their further pleaded case that the husband of respondent No.4 has executed a registered will in favour of his wife and that respondent No.4, in turn, executed a registered gift deed in favour of respondent No.5 and thus, respondent No.5 had legal and valid title for conveying the property in favour of the appellant. The appellant (defendant No.3) has purchased a part of plaint ‘A’ schedule property from respondent No.5.
The Court below, on appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence on record, granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
At the hearing, Sri G.Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, tried to strongly persuade this Court and after realizing that this Court is not in favour of setting aside the order of the lower Court, requested for disposal of the appeal with a direction to the lower Court to dispose of the suit itself at an early date.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, while declining to interfere with the order of the lower Court, the appeal is dismissed with the direction to the lower Court to dispose of O.S.No.163 of 2012 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, CMAMP.No.856 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY
03rd July, 2014 DR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the temporary injunction order in the underlying partition suit requires interference.
Whether the lower court's suit under O.S.No.163 of 2012 requires expedited disposal.
Gonda Hari Prasad
Naroju Virender and four others
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
