No amendment of plaint necessary = If for any reason the extent of the plaint schedule property as per the subsequent report of the Advocate Commissioner is found to be less, it is needless to say that if the petitioner/plaintiff has got right in the schedule property, the injunction can be confined only to that extent of the property even without the amendment.


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.228 of 2013


ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order dated 30.10.2012 passed in I.A.No.1296 of 2012 in O.S.No.635 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram. 
The suit was filed for injunction. It appears that after the filing of the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and measurements were taken in the presence of the Mandal Surveyor. 
The application was filed to reduce the extent of the site shown in the plaint schedule as per the measurements taken subsequent to the filing of the suit. 
The Court below, after considering the objections of the defendants, has dismissed the application holding that the suit is one for injunction and not one for declaration of title. 
Evidently, on the basis of the subsequent measurements that were taken by the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, there cannot be any amendment to the plaint schedule. 
Even according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the petitioner has given the boundaries in the plaint schedule as per the Sale Deed. 
If for any reason the extent of the plaint schedule property as per the subsequent report of the Advocate Commissioner is found to be less, it is needless to say that if the petitioner/plaintiff has got right in the schedule property, the injunction can be confined only to that extent of the property even without the amendment.

With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission.  There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.312 of 2013 filed along with the civil revision petition shall stand disposed of.

                                                   ___________________________
                                              N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J
29th January, 2013

cbs































 


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

















 

Civil Revision Petition No.228 of 2013






29th January, 2013
cbs







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.