Disposed

Kotaru Satyanarayana v. Ealapolu Satyanarayana and 4 Others

Telangana HC28 Nov 2017CRP/4109/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition, filed by a plaintiff challenging the dismissal of an appeal against the vacation of an ad interim injunction, was disposed of. The Single Judge directed the trial court to take up the suit, if not pending, and dispose of it within four months, stating that interim observations would not prejudice the trial.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to take up the suit, if not in progress, and dispose of the same within four months from the date of receipt of the order.

Kotaru Satyanarayana Vs Ealapolu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4109 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff maintained O.S.No.220 of 2007 against the revision respondents/defendants, the suit for the relief of declaration of plaintiff’s right over plaint schedule property with consequential permanent injunction restraining them and costs and for such other reliefs.

¶4

Pending suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1348 of 2007 for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The trial Court having granted ad interim injunction, after contest dismissed the injunction application by vacating ad interim injunction dated 18.09.2007 by order dated 12.10.2007. Impugning the same, CMA.No.44 of 2007 maintained against the said order of Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, before the II Additional District Judge, Eluru. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal by order dated 11.07.2011. It is impugning the same, the present revision is maintained.

¶5

Leave apart the matter is kept pending all through since 2011 without even ordering notice and all through coming for admission. At this stage with no necessity of ordering notice and keeping the matter further pending, for any injunction order is co-terminus with the suit apart from none of the observations in temporary injunction application either granting or refusing will influence the mind of the trial Court in deciding the suit, but for on own merits after full dressed trial by appreciation of the evidence placed on record oral and documentary in deciding the

¶6

¶7

Dr. SSRB,J

¶8

onus probandi on whose favour the preponderance of possibilities in favour of proof lies.

¶9

Having regard to the above, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to take up suit, if not already in progress of trial and to dispose of the same within four (04) months from the date of receipt of this order and with further observation that none of the observations of the trial Court or the lower appellate Court in granting exparte interim injunction and later vacating including by confirmation will influence the mind of trial Court nor prejudice any of the rights of the parties.

¶10

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand

¶11

closed. No costs.

¶12

_____________________________________
JUSTICE Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
Date: 28.11.2017
ska

Kotaru Satyanarayana v. Ealapolu Satyanarayana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotaru Satyanarayana v. Ealapolu Satyanarayana and 4 Others

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

Naseema Farheen Vs Shaik Kamar Hassan and 3 Others

Kantheti Koteshwari Vs Kantheti Srinivas Rao

Kottapalli Swarajya Vs K.v.v.Narasimha Narendra Phani

Ghanta Narasimharao, Prakasam Dist Vs Cherukuri Poleru, Prakasam Dist and Eight Others

Bitra Koteswara Rao, Prakasam Dist Vs Peddi Sudhakara Reddy, Prakasam Dist and Five Others

T v N P Srujana, Hyderabad Vs Tekumalla Venkata Narasimham, Mumbai