Allowed

Kona Susheela v. Dr.Mrs.Lakshmi Chandrakanthi Kona

Telangana HC21 Jun 2022CMA/96/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal, setting aside a lower court order that directed status quo without deciding the prima facie case in an interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX of CPC. The appeal was restored for fresh decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside and subject interim application restored to file for fresh decision on merits within three weeks.

Kona Susheela Vs Dr.Mrs.Lakshmi Chandrakanthi Kona — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.^{JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER} AND

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{JUWADISRIDEVI}

¶5

CIVIL MISCEL^{LANEOUSAPPEALNO: 96 OF 2022}

¶6

Appea|Underorder43RulelofC,P.C.againsttheorderanddecree dated Oi-12-2021^{in |.A.No.586 of 2020 in O.S.No.174ot2020on the file of the} court of the lX Additional^{chiefJudge, city civil court, Hyderabad, Telangana}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kona Susheela,^{W/o.Sri K. Durga Rao, aged 73 years Occ Housewife'} RJo.Vasudev,s Btoomfield'^{'Ecstiivs vitiagd ar, opp. Ir,4anthanschool,} Tellapur Hyderabad'^{502 032 Telangana}

¶9

2, Kona Venkata^{Narayanalvlurthy,SJo.K.DurgaRao, aged 46 years^ occ} - p;;;" s;*ice R/o.Ftail\o i05,'bNc Apartrients 6-2446ts, chintal Basti, Khairatabad,^{Hyderaoad'-"sbo'oo+r"lingana(presentlv residingat U.K.} Reo.bvhisG'P.A.Smt.KonaSusheela)-...APPELLANTS/ oeiendant Nos. 1&³

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Dr.Mrs.Lakshmi^{Chandrakanthi Kona' W/o-Prabhakar Shashidhar D/o'Dri} Kona Durqa^{Rao aged 54} ;ti;[^{d;irr',te"J"ar F'i"titioner'R/o U S A ' 2622} San Felip6^{count.San Lot"]3i-65i:d'Usn} Respondent^{/ Plaintitt}

¶12

:',::s:Hiftjlsls5nu1^{y"rB['ni Nagarjuna'aged 47 vearsR/o 621' Stevens}

¶13

¶14

3 Kondev Seshamani, Javabheri^{orangeCounty, W/o K ituIJiJ R Rao' ?q9d.11'Y9-{:,Y:jl'"k bitttitt i\anakramguda' C' Hyderabad'Apt 504} Telangana^{- 500 032}

¶15

4 Kodey^Avinash,!/" [ 15]fl if ?e,iil Jisl3i,3i'-=,iti,l;fl fi3f 'ffi[8;h:i 504,^jaYabhert ^O1110e^uot Telangana^{- 5uuuJz}

¶16

5 mt"",ru1elUfff;i'i:?i':lJ:rffiS'i&'-:'Jl'?3';E/'f,31?'11'3;j#'

¶17

3[?;

¶18

6 ily=""",351T3f,^l3{i:ili{ili':"?i5'}'?'&'3:35:?f;?ifl"llif Pradesh

¶19

7 D.Chandrima, D/o.Balla Venkata Narayana Murthy Aged 26 years, Occ engineer, Rl/o.Chinamamidipalli, Narsapur, West GodZvari District, Andhra Pradesh

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants No. 1,4 to 8

¶21

( Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are not necessary parties )

¶22

ANO:2 2022

¶23

Petition under Section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ihe Hign court may be preaseJ to s_ulpend the operation of the order of status quo granted in LA No.5b6/2020 in o.s.No.17412020 dt.03l2l2o21 on the file of tlre cJurt of the lx Additionat chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad in respect of ltem Nos.3 and 4 of suit c schedule property is concerned pending disposar of the above appear and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Appellants :SRl. K. CHIDAMBARAM

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :SRl ERANKI PHANt KUMAR

¶26

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶27

--_---

¶28

¶29

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶30

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.96 of 2O22

¶31

J U DG M ENT:^(Per Hon'bte Dr.sA,r)

¶32

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C, is filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 aggrieved by the order, dated 03.L2.202L^passed in I.A.No.5B6 of 2020 in O.S.No.174 of 2020 by the learned IX Additional Chief ludge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the subject Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent No.l/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules l and 2 of CPC was disposed of by the Court below directing both the^partiesto maintain status^quo during the^pendency oF suit^proceedings.

¶33

Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel for^the respondent No.1 and perused the record. Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are not necessary^parties to this appeal vide cause^title.

¶34

It is evident from the record that the Court below^had not decided whether there is a^prima facie case^{in favour of the} respondent No.1/plaintiff to^{grant the relief as sought for'} Furthermore, the^pleadings made^{by the appellants/defendant}

¶35

¶36

Nos.1 and 3 with regard to Ex.R3-certified copy of registered settlement deed dated 27.O4.2009 and Ex.R4-certified copy of registered settlement deed dated 29.12.20L2 were not discussed by the Court below to arrive at a conclusion. Further, when an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule L and 2 CPC, the Court has to initially decide whether there is a^prima facie case to grant the relief sought for. Without doing so, the Court below simply disposed of the subject Interlocutory Application directing both the parties to maintain status^quo during the pendency oF suit^proceedings, which is improper. The Court below has to^pass a final order, either allowing or dismissing the subject Interlocutory Application, but ought not have disposed of the application directing the parties to maintain status quo.

¶37

For the aforementioned reasons, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.12.202I passed in I.A.No.586 of 2020 in O.S.No.l74 of 2020 by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is set aside. Consequently, the subject LA.No.5B6 of 2020 stands restored to its file. The Court below is directed to decide the subject I.A, ilfresh, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) weeks from today, uninfluenced

¶38

¶39

¶40

by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. Both the learned counsel on record assured this Court that they would cooperate for early disposal of the subject LA. as indicated above. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, till the determination of the subject LA. by the Court below, the^parties to the subject I.A, shall not dispose of the subject matter of the suit (suit^properties) in any manner, whatsoever.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal,

¶42

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

¶44

Sd/.K.SREENIVASA^RAO JOINTAEGISTRAR //TRUE coPY/, ,ecrbtlorrrcen

¶45

Ilryr-tdqiq?nerglt"Dri#gX"if i,llfil'::,',:Tdl,!81"'"ou'2. One CC to^{SRl.K. CHll}

¶46

On6^{CC to SRl. ERANKI PHANIKUMAR' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶47

Two CD^CoPies

¶48

One^{SPare CoPY}

¶49

HIGH COURT

¶50

DATED:21 10612022

¶51

c S I ral
(
d zz JUll 2o?2 7-n
at

o i1 PA';

¶52

JUDGMENT

¶53

CMA.No.96 of 2022

¶54

ALLOWINC THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

Kona Susheela v. Dr.Mrs.Lakshmi Chandrakanthi Kona

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kona Susheela v. Dr.Mrs.Lakshmi Chandrakanthi Kona

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

Sri D. Shyam Kumar Vs Smt D. Ratnamala , Pavani

Smt. Madapthi Kavitha, , Meena Vs Madapathi Raju

Mrs. Parveen Vs The state of Telengana

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indukuri Veera Shekara Satyamani and 4 Others

R. Sai Reddy Vs R. Swetha

Shaik Ibrahim Vs The State of Telangana