Telangana High Court
CRP/574/2012 of Dr. T.L.N.Praveen Vs Smt. J.Indira on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.R.P.No.574 OF 2012 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 9.9.2011 passed in I.A.No.699 of 2008 in O.S.No.34 of 2008 (IA) by the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella. The petitioners herein are the defendants
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHANREDDY
C.R.P.No.574 OF 2012
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:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against orderdated 9.9.2011 passed in I.A.No.699 of 2008 inO.S.No.34 of 2008 (IA) by the Junior Civil Judge, RangaReddy District at Chevella.
The petitioners herein are the defendants and therespondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit.
O.S.No.34 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking mandatory injunction in respect of the suit scheduledproperty. The I.A.No.699 of 2008 was filed by thedefendants to reject the plaint on the grounds that the suitwas filed only for mandatory injunction without seeking therelief of redelivery of the possession of the scheduleproperty from the defendants; and the plaint was undervalued and necessary Court fee was not paid as required.
The Court below dismissed the petition on the groundthat no grounds were made out to reject the plaint underOrder 7 Rule 11 CPC and that the suit was filed within theprescribed period of limitation.
The defendants in fact very much stressed that theplaint was to be rejected on the ground that without seeking the relief of re-delivery of the property, thequestion of granting mandatory injunction in that contextwould not arise at all. It is also pleaded that separate I.A.filed for carrying out necessary amendment with regardsto the question of delivery of possession, was dismissed.
Even though notice has been served upon therespondents, no representation has been made on theirbehalf.
I have perused the order impugned along with relevant material. The perusal of it shows that no speakingorder was passed by the Court below. The Court belowhas to consider all relevant factors including the questionof delivery of the property while disposing of the IA.
Hence, the order passed by the Court below is setaside and the matter is remanded to the Court below forfresh disposal and disposed preferably, within a period oftwo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Civil Revision Petition is allowed subject to theabove made observations.
______________________________
JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDYDt.31.12.2012rkk