Telangana High Court
CRP/5551/2011 of Bonda Jagannadham Vs Bantu Veerraju on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5551 of 2011 Dated:29.12.2011 Between: Bonda Jagannadham, And others. …Petitioners and Bantu Veerraju, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5551 of 2011 ORDER: In a suit
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5551 of 2011Dated:29.12.2011
Between:Bonda Jagannadham,And others.
…Petitioners
and
Bantu Veerraju,And others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5551 of 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
In a suit filed by the respondents for permanent injunction,being O.S.No.144 of 2010, on the file of the Court of the JuniorCivil Judge, Gajuwaka, the petitioners are the defendants. Plaintiffs filed I.A.No.279 of 2010 for ad interim injunction. Itappears, the enquiry in the said Interlocutory Application iscompleted. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.387 of 2011praying the Court below to issue summons to call for the recordsfrom the Special Deputy Tahasildar Steel Plant Land Acquisitionfor confirmation, as the same is essential for clarification of thedocuments filed by the plaintiffs. The learned Judge dismissed thesame as not maintainable.
This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioners, and alsoperused the affidavit of the first petitioner filed in support ofI.A.No.387 of 2011. Admittedly, the application for injunction stands posted for orders. At that stage, the petitioners hereinwant to call for some other records, which according to them areessential in support of their case. Such a plea cannot beaccepted. Ordinarily, the interlocutory applications seekinginterim orders like ad interim injunction, appointment of receiver,attachment before judgment etc., are decided based on theaffidavit evidence, unless the other party requests to lead oralevidence. Having participated in the enquiry, the petitioners nowwant to call for some other records when the matters are postedfor orders. If such applications are allowed, it would certainlycause prejudice to the other side. In exercise of powers underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot,therefore, interfere in such matters.
The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
29.12.2011vs