CRP/5232/2009 of Smt. Pinninti Venkata Ramanamma Vs Majeti Satyanarayana on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

The respondent filed the suit being O.S.No.445 of 2006 forpermanent injunction. He also filed I.A.No.1852 of 2006 for ad interiminjunction, in which trial Court granted status quo.

The respondent also filed another I.A., for appointment of advocatecommissioner to notice the physical features. The same was assailed bypetitioner herein in C.R.P.No.3384 of 2009. This Court relying on thedecisions of this Court in Arredla Ram Reddy v Arredla Alivelamma[[1]]

and Penta Urmila v Karukola Kumaraswamy[[2]]set aside the order of thetrial Court observing that in a suit for injunction, advocate commissionercannot be appointed. Thereafter, plaintiff filed I.A.No.2211 of 2009 underOrder VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seekingamendment. He sought to add paragraph 6(a) and also sought extra relief ofmandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove illegalconstructions. The same was allowed. Aggrieved by which, thepetitioner/defendants filed present civil revision petition.

This Court heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learnedcounsel for respondent. After perusing the material, this Court is convincedthat the Court below has not committed any error apparent on the face ofrecord. The plaintiff alleged that after obtaining injunction order, thedefendant made illegal constructions. Therefore, unless and until, hespecifically seeks a mandatory injunction, even if plaintiff succeeds in thesuit and obtain permanent injunction, it would not be possible for him toremove illegal constructions. Therefore, the trial Court was justified inordering amendment.

The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordinglydismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period ofsix months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

31.12.2009pln

_______________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

[1]2004 (5) ALD 388[2]2005 (2) ALD 130