Dismissed

P Sreenivasulu (died) v. Bhaskar Reddy

Telangana HC16 Feb 2018CRP/170/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two Civil Revision Petitions by a common order. The petitions challenged the refusal of permission to certain successors to prosecute suits for bare injunction. The Court held the impugned orders could not be faulted due to it being a bare injunction suit and the non-production of the will in the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

P Sreenivasulu (died) Vs Bhaskar Reddy — Partition | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.154 & 170 of 2018

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Since the point involved in both these Civil Revision Petitions is the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two Civil Revision Petitions by way of this common order.

¶4

The husband of the petitioner No.2 filed the present suit on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pathikonda for injunction. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner’s husband died on 15.09.2017 pending the suits. Thereupon the present applications i.e. I.A.Nos.813 and 797 of 2017 were filed in O.S.Nos.221 and 90 of 2007 respectively, under the provisions of Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, seeking permission of the Court below to come on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 in the suits and to prosecute the proceedings. The learned Judge, by way of the orders impugned, partly allowed the applications, permitting Smt.P.Mallamma to come on record as the second plaintiff and to prosecute the suits. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the learned Junior Civil Judge ought to have permitted the rest of the petitioners also to come on record to prosecute the suits. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the deceased-Sri P.Sreenivasulu bequeathed the subject property in favour of his adopted son, Sri P.Krishna, as such, atleast to

¶5

¶6

the extent of the adopted son, the Court below should have allowed the applications.

¶7

A perusal of the orders impugned shows that the learned Junior Civil Judge permitted the first wife of the plaintiff to come on record to prosecute the suits. The fact remains that these are the suits only for the relief of bare injunction. It is also clear from the impugned orders that the Court below refused the relief in favour of the rest of the petitioners by assigning cogent and convincing reasons. Admittedly, the Will, now sought to be pressed into service before this Court for the first time, was not produced before the Court below. Therefore, the orders passed by the Court below cannot be faulted by any stretch of imagination.

¶8

For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶10

16^th February, 2018 Tsy

P Sreenivasulu (died) v. Bhaskar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Sreenivasulu (died) v. Bhaskar Reddy

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

Nidamolu Purna Chander Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Sreenivasulu Vs The State of Telangana

Vankudothu Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

M.Ananda Swarup, Vs Prl.Secy., Home dept., State of A.P.

K.Udaya Sekar Vs Union of India

Rajam Goutham, Vs The State of Telangana