Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/1802/2018 of NANDYAL RAGHUSHANKAR GOUD Vs KHAMBHAM EDIGA ATCHANNA on 29 December 2023
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATU^f’^R^^ FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER /feg TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1«n? OF 2018 fit< w Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATU^f’^R^^FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER /fegTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE<wPRESENT
fit<w
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAYCIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1«n? OF 2018
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed againstthe order dated 27.12.2017 in C.M.A. No. 13/ 2014 on the file of the Courtof the V Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, confirming the Orderdated 20-10-2014 in I.A. No. 1375/2011 in O.S. No. 356/2011 on the file ofthe Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.
Between:
1. Nandyal Raghushankar Goud,S/o. Seshadri Goud,aged 55 years,R/o. Gadivemula Village and MandalKurnool District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. Khambham Ediga Atchanna,S/o. Balanna,aged 74 years,R/o. Gadivemula Village and MandalKurnool District.
...Respondent
lA NO: 1 OF 2Q1ft
Petitionunder Section151CPC,isfiledprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, theHigh Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orderdated20.102014 in I.A. No. 1375/2011in OS. No. 356/2011 on thefile of theCourt of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI. V NITESH
The Court made the following Order:
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 filed against C.M.A.No.[13][ of]2014 confirming the order of injunction passed LA.No.[1375][ of]2011 in O.S.No. 356 of 2011.
2. ThepetitionerISthedefendant.The
Respondent/plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunctionand along with the suit, I.A.No.l375 of 2011 was filed underOrder 39rule1 and 2ofCivil Procedure Code,seekingtemporary injunction. The l.A.No. 1375 of 2011 was[allowed][ on]20.10.2014 granting injunction infavour of the plaintiff.
3. The same was confirmed in C.M.A.No. 13 of 2014 by theV Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.Hence[the]C.R.P.V Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.Hence[the]C.R.P.
4. InthisCivilRevisionPetitionthereisnoorderinterdicting the order injunction granted by the trial[Court.]interdicting the order injunction granted by the trial[Court.]
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued on themerits of the case.However, this Court is of the opinion[that]as the orders of the injunction were in vogue infavour[of][ the]plaintiff from20.10.2014,it wouldnotbeappropriatetounsettle the state of affairs at this length of time.merits of the case.However, this Court is of the opinion[that]as the orders of the injunction were in vogue infavour[of][ the]plaintiff from20.10.2014,it wouldnotbeappropriatetounsettle the state of affairs at this length of time.
6. The other reason for not interfering with the orders ofinjunction is that the orders of trial Court as well as the lowerappellate Court are a well reasoned and they do not warrantany interference from this Court.injunction is that the orders of trial Court as well as the lowerappellate Court are a well reasoned and they do not warrantany interference from this Court.
7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed andasthe suit is of the year 2011, the trial Courtmay consider asexpeditious disposal of the suit. No order as to costs.the suit is of the year 2011, the trial Courtmay consider asexpeditious disposal of the suit. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shallstand dismissed.
Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPHASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District.
2. The V Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.
3. One CC to Sri. Karri Murali Krishna, Advocate. [OPUC]4.One CC to Sri. V. Nitesh, Advocate. [OPUC]5.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra[Pradesh][ at]Amaravathi.Amaravathi.
6. THREE CD Copies.LRVALLRVAL
HIGH COURT
,DATED:29/12/2023
ORDER
CRP.No.1802 of 2018
t.i£19 APR 202909m
DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION
sr^