About Me

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Or. 1, rule 10 C.P.C. - subsequent purchaser - in violation of injunction orders - not maintainable = No impleading petition is maintainable by a purchaser pendenti lit in contempt proceedings filed under Or.39 Rule 2 A of C.P.C = KONA VENKATA RADHA KRISHNA & ANOTHER VS KONA NEELAVENI @ SUSEELA & 2 OTHERS = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=1790&year=2013

Or. 1, rule 10 C.P.C. - subsequent purchaser - in violation of injunction orders - not maintainable = No impleading petition is maintainable by a purchaser pendenti lit in contempt proceedings filed under Or.39 Rule 2 A of C.P.C =
As the injunction orders operate in personam, merely alleging that he has purchased the property subsequently, the 2nd petitioner cannot come on record in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.  Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.674 of 2012 in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.
          For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 
CRP 1790 / 2013
CRPSR 10244 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
KONA VENKATA RADHA KRISHNA & ANOTHER  VSKONA NEELAVENI @ SUSEELA & 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : RAMA GOPALRESP.ADV. : RAJESWARI
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  VISAKHAPATNAM
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1790 of 2013

Dated: 08.11.2013

Between:

Kona Venkata Radha Krishna & another.

…..Petitioners

And


Kona Neelaveni @ Suseela & others.
…..Respondents


 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1790 of 2013
ORDER :
          This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.859 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, aggrieved by order dated 18.09.2012, passed in I.A.No.674 of 2012 in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.
          The suit was originally filed by 1st petitioner herein and the 2nd petitioner was impleaded as plaintiff No.2, alleging that he has purchased plaint-A and B schedule properties.  The 1st petitioner was a party to the miscellaneous application in I.A.No.337 of 2003, in which, injunction orders are granted.  Alleging violation of such injunction orders, the 1st plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1050 of 2006 in I.A.No.337 of 2003 under Order 39, Rule 2-A of CPC.  Seeking his impleadment in the said application, the 2nd petitioner herein has filed the present application in I.A.No.674 of 2012.  The trial Court, by impugned order, dismissed the said petition.  As against the same, this revision is filed.
          It is contended by the learned counsel for 2nd petitioner that     in view of his purchase of property, he stepped into the shoe of 1stpetitioner, as such, he is entitled to come on record as 2nd petitioner in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.  It is to be noticed that I.A.No.1050 of 2006 is filed alleging violation of injunction orders obtained by the               1st plaintiff in the suit.  As the injunction orders operate in personam, merely alleging that he has purchased the property subsequently, the 2nd petitioner cannot come on record in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.  Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.674 of 2012 in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.
          For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 
Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.  No order as to costs.  Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.


______________________
                                            R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
8th November 2013
ajr

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.