Disposed

K. Prakash v. Syed Ismail

Telangana HC23 Sept 2022CMA/114/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two C.M.A.s arising from the dismissal of interim injunction applications. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the main suit expeditiously while restraining the parties from disturbing the status quo regarding the disputed property.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed appeals, directed trial court to dispose suit within 3 months, parties to maintain status quo.

K. Prakash Vs Syed Ismail — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁸¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HHIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY HE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEIV1BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G,PRIYADARSINI

¶6

C.M.A.NO: 1 10 AND 114 OF 2022

¶7

C.M.A.NO: '110 OF 2022:

¶8

Appeal Under Order Xllll rule 1(s) r/w Section 104 of CPC aggrieved bythe orderand decree in I A No 479 OF 2019 in O.S No 78 of 2019 dated 04-12-1021 on the file of the Court of the XV Additional District and 'Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally

¶9

Between

¶10

K. Prakash, S/o. Late Lakshmi Narayana. Aged about 67^yrs, Occ: Retd Employee, R/o. MIG-4439, BHEL, Tellapur lVedak Distrtct

¶11

.APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶12

AND

¶13

1 SYED lSMAlL, S/o Syed Yousuf, Aged^{about 42} Years'^{Occ Business,} R/o H.No.12-12-157 l3ti, Ravindra^{Nag-r. Seethapal Mandi Secunderabad'}

¶14

2 Boinpally Vinod Kumar^{Rao, Aged about} -5.1^{years' Occ Business'} n/o F.ttb.t-SaijO-S+, Opp^{SriKrish-naTempletvladihaguda, Hyderabad-500} 049

¶15

,.RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under^{Section'151CPC praying that rn the circumstances stated} intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition'theHrghCourtmaybepleasedto grant interim injunction^{restraining the Respondentscr therr men or anybody} them from^{interferingwith the Petitioner's possessionover the suit schedule} property-A in O S No.^{78 of 2019 on the file of the Hon ble XV Additional District}

¶18

Reddy^{Drstrict at KukatpallYdulng oendencYof the} and Sessions^{Judge,R anga} CMA.

¶19

Counsel^{for the Appelant : SRI'S VIJAYAPRASHANTH} Counsel^{for the RespcndentNO 1 : SAREDDULA SRINIVAS RAO}

¶20

C.M.A NO:^1140F2C22:

¶21

Appe rl Under^{Order XLlll rule 1(s) r/w Section 104 of CPC} aggrieved^{bytheord:rand decreein l A No 478 OF2019 in O S No 78 of 2019} dated 04-12-1021^{cn the file of the Court of the XV Additional Districtand} Sessions^{Judge, Ra rga Reddy Dislrict at Kukatpally}

¶22

Between

¶23

67^yrs, K. Prakash,^{j/o. Late Lakshmi Narayana' Aged} -9!9ut ii".. HJii"t,i,ptr vee,^{n7o rurrc-aa:sBHEL'T6llapur'lvledak Distrtct} ...APPELLANT/PETI^{TIONER/PLAINTIFF}

¶24

nrto

¶25

1 Boinpally V rod^{Kumar Rao Aged} -^{about 5.1} ,^{years' Occ: Busine-s^sa} -ni" fr.f.fb.f -f 4/30_54 Opp Sr,'X,snta Tempte, Madihaguda, Hyderabad-Sg6 049.

¶26

2 SYED lSMl,lL. S/o^{Syed Yousuf. Aged about 42 yeq11Occ. Business'} R/o H.No.12-12-157 l3li^{RavrndraNagar. Seethapal lvlandi Secunderabad'}

¶27

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶29

Petition un^jer Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filcd in 5rppon of the petition the High Court may be pleased to grant interim injr nction restrarnrng the Respondents or their men or anybody them from interf :ring with the Pelitioner's possession over the suit schedule property-A in O.{ No 78 oI 2019 cn the frle of the llon ble XV Additional District and Sessions Ju lge.Ranga Reddy District al Kukatpally. during pendency of the CMA.

¶30

Counsel for the \ppeltant : SRt. S VtJAyA PRASHANTH Counsel forthe lespondent NO_1: SRI C B SIDDARTH Counsel for the lespondent NO.2 : SAREDDULA SRINIVAS RAO The Court delivr red the foltowing: JUDGMENT

¶31

t I

¶32

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

¶33

C.M.A.Nos. 11O and 114 of 2022

¶34

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Ster Justit-<' ti. .sn Deui)

¶35

Both these appeals arise out of common order, dated 04.12.2022 passed in l.A.Nos.479 and 478 of 2022, respectively, in O.S.No.78 of 2079 on the file of thc XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddv District at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed both the I.A.s, filed by the plaintiff, appellant l.rerein, seeking temporary injunction restrainir-rg 1hc delenrianl s therein from alienating Petition-B Schedule Proper.tv irr l.A.No.47B of 2Ol9 and permanent injuncricn restraining ti-,e rlefe rrdants from interfering with the possession ol thr' plaintiff over the Petition-A Schedule Property.

¶36

2l During the coLlrse of i'rearir-rg.^{botLr thecot' nselhave} rdstricted l.heir^{prar.erlor clispo,,al()l'tlr( i1ppea1swith a direction} r,f iffi titiCtiiirt^{to dispose of rhe surt c\peditiouslyand that the]'} ,-#t Ett'en df!^{rrnclertakingtl-rzrt both tirc r)artiesu"ill cooperate} .rftiH the trial Cotirt^{for clisposalt;i tlr'" stril $'ithout seeking arty} ur1$ranted^{adjourllrncllt s'}

¶37

¶38

Ir-r the circu nstances, ri-ithout going^{into the nlerits of the} case, both the ay^,peals are disposed of directing the^{triaL Court lo} dispose of O.S No.78 of 2O19 as expeditiously as^possible. preferal>l-r'. u'it}'r n ar period of three months from the date of receipt of copv of this judgment, in accordance u,ith la'r.t', dph, affording oppor unitv to both the parties. Hor,r'ever, till the disposal ol thc srrit, both t-he parties are directecl to maintain sfalus gu() \'ith respect to the suit schedule properties. No costs.

¶39

N4iscellar.rr or rs pctitions, if any, pending in this appeal shzrll stancl closed.

¶40

¶41

SD/-K.SRINIVASA o .,OITIT REGIS AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FICER

¶42

To. 1 The XV Additl :nal Drstrict & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpatly

¶43

2 One CC to S 1l S VTJAYA PRASHANTH, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sl ll C B RAtvl TUOHAN REDDY, Advocate. tOpUCl 4. One CC to Sltl C B SIDDARTH REDDY, Advocate. topUCl 5 One CC to S il SAREDDULA SR|N|VAS RAO, Advocate. tOpUCl 6. Two CD Cop es

7, One Spare C cpy

HIGH COURT

DATED:23109,2022

1E titT ?fra 'i

COMMON JIJDGMENT

CMA.No.11( AND 114 of 2022

¶52

DISPOSIN(i OF THE BOTH CMA'S WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

,.v, -rm$ft"E^j

K. Prakash v. Syed Ismail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Prakash v. Syed Ismail

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 Land Acquisition Officer, Vs B. Bhadru

R Sudhakar Reddy Vs The Special Deputy Collector

Srinivasulu Goud Vs The Special Deputy Collector

K. Prakash Vs Syed Ismail and another

Nangunoori Vinod Rao Vs Vejella Rama Rao

Nangunoori Vinod Rao Vs Vejella Rama Rao