Allowed

Abdul Azeem, v. Konda Ramu

Telangana HC19 Jul 2016CMA/316/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge set aside the direction to file an undertaking and pull down structures, holding it unwarranted given completed construction, but clarified these structures remain subject to the suit's outcome. The Court emphasized fast-tracked suit disposal.

What did the court decide?

Set aside direction to file undertaking and pull down structures; declared constructions subject to suit outcome.

Abdul Azeem, Vs Konda Ramu — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶2

CMA No. 316 OF 2012

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal is preferred questioning the order and decree dated 22.11.2011 in I.A. No. 623 of 2011 in O.S.No. 256 of 2011 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

¶5

2. Appellant herein is second defendant in the above referred suit and first respondent herein is plaintiff and second respondent herein is first defendant. Suit is filed for declaration of cancellation of half of the registered sale deed dated 13.2.2006 executed by first respondent in favour of second defendant, to the extent of plaint schedule property and for consequential direction directing the second defendant to deliver vacant possession. In that suit I.A.No. 623 of 2011 is filed to restrain the respondent from proceeding with further construction from raising structures in the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit, in which the impugned order is made.

¶6

3. Heard both sides.

¶7

4. Advocate for appellant submitted that the appellant is mainly aggrieved with the direction that the

¶8

appellant should file an undertaking before the Court and that he should pull down the structures in case plaintiff succeeds in the suit. He submitted that the Court below having recorded the fact that the entire construction was over by the date of passing the impugned order instead of dismissing the application as infructuous gave such direction and the same has to be set aside.

¶9

5. Advocate for first respondent /plaintiff submitted that the appeal can be disposed of by setting aside the said direction recording that the constructions made are subject to the result of the suit.

¶10

6. Considering the submissions of both sides and considering the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate that the direction given by the Court below to the appellant to file an undertaking is unwarranted and the same is liable to be set aside. However, since constructions were completed even before the impugned order is passed, it is made clear that those constructions shall be subject to the outcome of the suit. The trail Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶11

7. With above direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶13

DATE: 19.07.2016. KA

Abdul Azeem, v. Konda Ramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Azeem, v. Konda Ramu

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

Aruna Kumari Vs v.Danial Jaya Kumar

Aruna Kumari Vs v.Danial Jaya Kumar

Sri Veerla Kasula Babu, Vs Veerla Sridevi

Anita Prabhu Vs Sri P. Prabhu

T.Poorna Chandra Mouli Vs Smt. M.Mallika

Smt. Perakam Sridevi Vs Perakam Balanjaneyulu