STAY PENDING DELAY PETITON= Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in condone delay petition ASMP. No. 1706 of 2010, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2009 passed in O.S. No. 242 of 2002 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, pending ASMP. No. 1706 of 2010 presented to the High Court Under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 232 days in filing AS. SR. No.9886 of 2010 sought to be preferred to the High Court.




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD

                           WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST,                               
                                           TWO THOUSAND AND TEN   
                                                               : PRESENT:
   THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE: L. NARASIMHA REDDY
ASMP. No. 1773 OF 2010  
IN
     A.S.(SR) No. 9886 OF 2010
Between:
Maddula Venkateswarlu S/o Nagaiah
                                                                                                                        Petitioner
 (Appellant in AS.(SR.)  No.9886 of  2010
                                                                    sought to be preferred to the High Court.)
                                                                    AND
1.      Maddula Sridevi D/o Venkateswarlu, R/o Damarapalli VillageGuntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District.
2.      Maddula Sambasiva Rao S/o Venkateswarlu, R/o Damarapalli VillageGuntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District.
                                                                                          Respondents/Plaintiffs
3.      Maddula Madhavi D/o Maddula Venkateswarlu, R/o Damarapalli VillageGuntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District.
                                                      Respondent/Defendant No.2

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER                    : Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS                  :

            Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in condone delay petition ASMP. No. 1706 of 2010, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the judgment and  decree dated 29.09.2009 passed in O.S. No. 242 of 2002 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, pending ASMP. No. 1706 of 2010 presented to the High Court Under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 232 days in filing AS. SR. No.9886 of  2010 sought to be preferred to the High Court.

            The Court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause why this application should not be complied with, made the following order. (The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case.)

ORDER :

There shall be interim stay of passing of final decree. The appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month, in lieu of his exclusive enjoyment of item No.1 of the suit schedule property, to respondents 1 and 2 – plaintiffs on or before 5th of every month, commencing from September 2010.”
           

                                                                            ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
                                                                                        for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
  1. The IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur
2.      Maddula Sridevi D/o Venkateswarlu, R/o Damarapalli Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District.
3.      Maddula Sambasiva Rao S/o Venkateswarlu, R/o Damarapalli Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District.
4.      Maddula Madhavi D/o Maddula Venkateswarlu, R/o Damarapalli Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. ( Addresses 2 to 4 BY RPAD)
5.      One CC to Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, Advocate (OPUC)
6.      One spare copy.
 BV










HIGH COURT








LNR.J







DATED : 25-08-2010










ORDER








ASMP. NO. 1773 OF 2010 

IN

A.S. (SR).NO. 1706 OF 2010





INTERIM STAY

















DRAFTED: BY BV

DATED : 03-09-2010



HIGH COURT








LNR.J







DATED : 25-08-2010










ORDER








ASMP. NO. 1773 OF 2010 

IN

A.S. (SR).NO. 1706 OF 2010





INTERIM STAY






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.