Telangana High Court
CRP/6516/2012 of Gade Narsimha Reddy, Vs Gade Vijayalakshmi on 28 December 2012
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6516 of 2012 Between: Gade Narasimha Reddy ..... PETITIONER And Gade Vijayalakshmi and two others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6516 of 2012
Between:Gade Narasimha Reddy
AndGade Vijayalakshmi and two others
..... PETITIONER
.....RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6516 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:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated13.09.2012 in CMA.No.3/2008 on the file of the V Additional DistrictJudge (III FTC), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda, whereunder the learnedDistrict Judge set aside the order of the trial Court passed inI.A.No.1100 of 2007 in O.S.No.296 of 2007 dated 31.09.2008.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.296 of 2007 is the revision petitioner.The suit was filed for declaration of title and for injunction, contendingthat he is the owner of the property. The trial Court, after consideringthe material, granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved bythe same, the respondents/defendants preferred C.M.A.No.3 of 2008and the same was allowed by setting aside the injunction ordergranted by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present CivilRevision Petition is filed.
As can be seen from the order of the lower appellate Court, theplaintiff claims to have purchased some property from 4[th] defendant under an agreement of sale and he has been in possession andenjoyment of the same since 1983. The Court below relied upon theaward of the Lok Adalat, Ex.P5, wherein the rights of the defendantsare said to have been considered. As the Court below felt that as theaward of Lok Adalat is still existing, the injunction cannot be granted.
Evidently, the questions raised by both the parties can beeffectively answered by a regular trial and in fact, the learned counselfor revision petitioner is also interested in getting expeditious disposalof the suit. Therefore, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suitwithin three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. CRP MPNo.8687/2012 shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as tocosts.
Dated: 28.12.2012Dsr/vsv
____________________________
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
Note:Registry is directed to communicate the orderto the concerned by 04.01.2013.
B/o
Dsr/Vsv
Note:Furnish copy in two days B/o Dsr/Vsv