Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C.- It is not known when the third hut came into existence. The decree speaks of only two huts and as seen from the impugned order, two huts were removed and vacant possession was delivered and the E.P. was terminated. The execution of the decree was, therefore, in consonance with the terms of the decree. In the event the 2nd petitioner has any grievance, it is open to him to get the decree amended suitably. He cannot, however, assail the impugned order, whereunder the delivery of the property was recorded in terms of the decree. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with liberty as stated above to the 2nd petitioner to get the decree amended suitably or avail other remedies, if any, available under law in respect of the third hut. There shall be no order as to costs.

CRP 4460 / 2012

null null / null
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
MARADANA SURYANAYARANA  VSG.MAHALAKSHMI& ORS
PET.ADV. : SURESH KUMARRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ORDER 21 C.P.C.DISTRICT:  VIZIANAGARAM


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4460 OF 2012


ORDER:
          This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 16.08.1996, in E.P.No.28 of 1994 in O.S.No.115 of 1989 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Cheepurupalli, whereunder the E.P. filed by the original petitioner/plaintiff, under Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C., seeking delivery of vacant possession of the E.P. schedule property, was ordered and the E.P. was terminated.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents.

3.       The original petitioner obtained a decree against the respondents for delivery of possession in O.S.No.115 of 1989. He filed E.P.No.28 of 1994 seeking execution of the decree, dated 17.10.1994. The decree is specifically directing defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to vacate the two sheds constructed in the suit site and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. Accordingly, it is stated that the Amin has removed the two sheds and delivered vacant possession to the plaintiff. The grievance of the petitioners is that the defendants have put up a third hut and the Amin ought to have removed the said hut also.

4.       As seen from the impugned order, in fact the third hut was also removed initially and subsequently, the Amin filed another report stating that by mistake he got the third hut removed and that it was reconstructed immediately. It is not known when the third hut came into existence. The decree speaks of only two huts and as seen from the impugned order, two huts were removed and vacant possession was delivered and the E.P. was terminated. The execution of the decree was, therefore, in consonance with the terms of the decree. In the event the 2nd petitioner has any grievance, it is open to him to get the decree amended suitably. He cannot, however, assail the impugned order, whereunder the delivery of the property was recorded in terms of the decree.

5.       Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with liberty as stated above to the 2nd petitioner to get the decree amended suitably or avail other remedies, if any, available under law in respect of the third hut. There shall be no order as to costs.

6.       Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
         

____________________

G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

August 29, 2012
MD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4460 OF 2012










August 29, 2012
MD

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.