Disposed

Vuppala Sai Krishna v. Vuppala Venkata Ramana Varaprasad

Telangana HC2 Feb 2024CRP/448/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff in a partition suit challenged the trial court's prolonged inaction on his interim injunction application restraining defendants from alienating suit schedule land. The revision petition was disposed at admission stage by directing the Junior Civil Judge, Alampur to decide the pending application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Junior Civil Judge, Alampur to dispose of I.A. No. 254 of 2020 in O.S. No. 92 of 2020 within one month; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Vuppala Sai Krishna Vs Vuppala Venkata Ramana Varaprasad — Partition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^3s851

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYJT&SBT#E^{OF TELANGANA}

¶3

FlglY_TfrF sEcoND DAY oF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOdi"

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA clvrL REVISION PETITIO N NO: 448oF 2021

¶6

Petition under A fiicn- 227 constitution of rndia against the order dated 121a.2020 in r'A' No 254 0f 2020 in o-s' No. g2 0t 20200n the fire of the court of the Junior Civil Judge at Alampur.

¶7

Between:

¶8

i:1i+1i#,i,"^1T??l?,I.ufl^{]ltili"[3r1?,Ey:ffi,:,"x.jff} fl ::#,f"xh3B:

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

Vuppala Venkata Rame v,',+ tilg$, Iri tfl:,3iifsl?il1,;i;d."#"?",f^{ft .: !:s8:i[#,i} ftffi i:

¶12

'3[:,^{j:ils:i]fl['#u:4,ffi} bi".J,#l,l.d#r".f i,ffi :;.rpg;",1**,",

¶13

'fi,?'Et1T,:iYj:,'-Sl,Yir'd3^:[Tl6t,:li?i[ffi^fl',f 1f;o3iS:"

¶14

Jamanjyothi Srinivas. S/r on.ru'6.-i-b-1'd#6di:sJBPSgSlil?lfi,l,ia,1rj#1,",ffi ,..r"j.Business,R/

¶15

. E::J:iB?J,fl.fl,^{ofriceof the rhasirdar, wadepafiyMandat,} Josuramba

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶17

IA NO: 10 F 2021

¶18

Petition under orderxXXrX Rule 1(A) R/w sectron 151 Cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the. affidaviiii[i"ir'Jrip"n or the petition, the Hhh court mav be preased to restrain t'ril-il#il1;r;'ifi . 2 b 4from arienatins aid

¶19

creating third party interest over the suit schedure property to any other third party not to change physical features of schedule propur[V.-'

¶20

IA NO: 1oF 2022

¶21

Between:

¶22

'8ff ,i:mtl:lU#lt,ygbi".J,T,l!:.df"'""rf fl ,#:f^,,?i:#:t*** 2. Goranbai Renuka Bai Wo. Q.-C[qqdra prakash, Age 58 years, Occ. House wife, R:/o. H. No. 1 _3.t 83/,10. crs.'sri'iCtilh1iEi[I.ii Nasar, Hyderabad.

¶23

3 j:["ft,J"ili-'i$]1f0"..,{:rtpsy,siil?lfi,lfa,1?,,"#tffi,.,"r"jd Business, R/

¶24

AND

¶25

...PET|TIONERS/RESPONDENTS No. 2 to 4/DEFENDANTS

¶26

1 Vuppala Sai Krishna. S/" y,y.glklta Ramana Vara prasad, Age 21 years. ?&';,"11'oX'a';f;^i:,5,5;1-ta+;i;'sh'il'itft:,'";ir:d",w;a;iavidil;'i;

¶27

.., RESPONT}ENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTTFF

¶28

2 Vuppala V.enkata Ramana Varaprasad, S/o. pooma Ch ufi i;Jfr X','$;lJk{"""",lfi#*tf A.j#"?"ff ft "l!:331i'[i,",rfl ?ii,9

¶29

3 E::J:i6iJ,,?,?i,^{ofriceof the rhasitdar, wadepafly Mandat,Josutamba}

¶30

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under section 1s1.cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the p"iitio'n, inl itg'h Court may be pteased to vacate the interim orders dated 1+-o'9-202i'p".""i.:n r.A. No. 1 of 2021 in cRp No' 448 0t 2021 and dismiss tn" cip r'ro. i+a*"izitzl with exemprary costs, in the interest of justice.

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B. Devadas

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao The Court made the following:

¶34

7/ .i/

¶35

THE HON'BLE SMT^{JUSTICE K.SUJANA} CTVIL REVISION PETITION No. 448 OF 2O2l

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

By way of this civil^{revision petition,plaintiffin O S'} No. 92 of 2O2O^{challeoge the inaction of the learned Junior} Civil Judge at Alampur in^{disposing of I.A. No' 254 of 2O2O} in O.S. No. 92 of^2O2O.

¶38

For the sake of convenience,^{hereinafter,the parties} will be referred to as^{arrayed before the trial Court'}

¶39

The facts of the case^{are that the plaintiff/ revision} petitioner herein filed the^{suitagainstthe} respondents/defendant^{Nos. Ito 5 for partition of 'Z share} and for declaration^{of the suit schedulepropertyand} injunction restraining^{the defendalts from alienatingand} creating any third^{partyinterest over the suit schedule} property i.e., lands in^{Survey No.34-5 to an extent of} Acre 6-O0^{guntas situated at Julakal village, Waddepalli} Mandal, Mehabubnagar^{District. The plaintiffclaims to be} the coparcener^{of the suit scheduleproperty' According to} the plaintiff, defendant^{No. 1 nominally executed registered} sale deed Nos.99O1,^{99C.2 and 9903 of2019 dated} 07.06.2019 in^{favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 in respect of}

¶40

¶41

¶42

s,(s.J CRP No. 448 of202l

¶43

suit schedule property. Since the suit^{scheduleproperty is} situated at road side and^{there is a rise in ttre pricesin that} area, the defendants are trying^{to alienatethe suit schedule} property to others without givitg^Yz share to^{the plaintiff.} Aggrieved by the same, the^{plaintiff frleda suit. Along with} the suit, he also frled I.A.No. 254 of^{2020 under Order} XXXIX Rules I an'd 2 of Civil Procedure^{Code, restraining} defendant Nos. 2 to 4 ftorn a-lienating^{and creatingthird} party interest over the suit schedule^{propertypending} disposal of the suit.

¶44

By the impugned docket orders dated^12.7O.2O2O, 24.11.2O2O and 03.03.2O21, the trial Court^{adjourned the} matter without passing any specific orders.^{Aggrievedby the} same, plaintiff frled the present revision^petition.

¶45

Heard Sri. B. Devadas, learn'ed counsel for^the revision petitioner/ plaintiff as well as Sri.^{M.V.Hanumantha} Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. Perused the material available on record.

¶46

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision^{petitioner has filedthe} impugned I.A. way back in October, 2O2O, but^{so far, no}

¶47

¶48

s(s.-/ CRP No. 14E oJ 202 I

¶49

¶50

--7,'.

¶51

orders have been passed thereon. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks a direction to the trial Court for early disposal of the I.A.

¶52

¶53

On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the respondents contended that this Court vide docket order dated L4.O9.2022 granted injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 /defeodant Nos. 2 to 4 from alienating and creating third party interest over the suit schedule property, as such, prayed this Court to dimiss the C.R.P.

¶54

Considering the limited grievance of the revision petitioner and submissions made by the respondents and also considering the fact ttrat the I.A. seeking to restrain the respondents from alienating and creating third party interest over the suit schedule property, is pending from October, 2020, ends of^justice would be met if a direction is given to the trial Court to dispose of the said I.A. within a reasonable time.

¶55

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand disposed of at the admission stage directing the l,earned Junior Civil Judge at Alampur to take up I.A. No. 254 of

¶56

¶57

.S,(S J CRP No. 448 of 2021

¶58

2O2O ir O.S. No. 92 of^{2O2O without grantingunnecessary} adjournments and dispose^{of the same on merits as} expeditiously as^{possible, preferably,withina period of one}

¶59

(01) month from the date of^{receipt of a copyof this order,}

¶60

duly affording opportunity^{to both the parties. No costs'}

¶61

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions,^{if any, shall stand}

¶62

closed

¶63

//TRUE^COPY//

¶64

SD/.P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANTEEGISTRAR /

¶65

SECTION^OFFICER

¶66

To, 1 . The Junior^{Civil Judgeat Alampur (With records)}

¶67

One CC to^{Sri B. Devadas, Advocate[oPUCl}

¶68

O""^{CCto Sri M.V. HanumanthaRao,Advocate IOPUC]} 4. Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0210212024

ORDER

CRP.No.448 o12021

itiE SLi ,s
(
,t
c $(
O
12 fiAn Z0Z4
()
3,.'/
-t+
t,i-.:.-.

¶77

C.R.P. IS DISPOSED OF

¶78

Gy,-g
€
7t-
<br>

Vuppala Sai Krishna v. Vuppala Venkata Ramana Varaprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vuppala Sai Krishna v. Vuppala Venkata Ramana Varaprasad

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

Abdul Qadeer Vs Asma Begum

Gaddam Satyanarayan Reddy, Vs Devasani Shekaraiah

Qazi Nawabuddin Vs The District Collector

Tati Hemalatha @ Gunda Hemalatha Vs Tati Chaitanya Babu

Mohammed Aslam Patel Vs Mohammed Altaf-Ur-Rahman

Naseema Shaik Vs Avula Narender alias S.K. Sameer