Telangana High Court
CRP/5407/2011 of Bonda Jagannadham Vs Bantu Veerraju on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5407 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.5407 of 2011 ORDER: In a suit
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5407 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.5407 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.388 of 2011to reopen the application for injunction to mark the documents andalso call for some more documents from the Special DeputyTahasildar to prove the genuinity and also for further hearing. Thelearned Judge dismissed the same 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.388 of 2011. It is admitted therein that the application forinjunction stands posted for orders. At that stage, the petitioners herein want to file some other documents which according to themare essential 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 mark documents when the matters are posted for orders. If such applications are allowed, it would certainly cause prejudiceto the other side. In exercise of powers under Article 227 of theConstitution of India, this Court cannot, therefore, interfere in suchmatters.
The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)