suppression of material facts - suppressed from the Court below, the pendency of writ petition and the order impugned in the present writ appeal = Appellant during vacation, made an attempt to seek interim order. However, his efforts were in vain. The Division Bench in the vacation on 12.5.2016 at the request of the learned counsel for appellant posted the writ appeal on 1.6.2016. After having failed to obtain any interim order in the vacation, the appellant filed a civil suit bearing O.S. No. 137 of 2016 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki on 3.6.2016. Mr.S.Ravi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 placed a copy of the suit on record and after inviting our attention to the averments therein, submitted that the appellant has suppressed from the Court below, the pendency of writ petition and the order impugned in the present writ appeal. We have perused the plaint and we find there is no whisper about the writ petition and interim order, impugned in the present appeal. We find subject matter of the suit and the writ petition is one and the same and even the averments are similar. In this back-drop and for detailed reasons recorded by the learned single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

WA 314 / 2016
WASR 83668 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
KANDIMALLA HARINADH BABU, PRAKASAM DIST.,A.P.  VSTHE STATE OF A.P.,MINES,HYD., & 4 OTRS.
PET.ADV. : KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDARESP.ADV. : BHUSHAN



HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 314 of 2016 Date: 7.6.2016 Between: Kandimall Haranadha Babu S/o Narayana R/o Kondayapalem village, Ballikurava mandal, Prakasam district ….. Petitioner(s) And The State of A P Rep by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department A P Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …..Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 314 of 2016 PC: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B.Bhosale) Heard Sri Jagdishwar Reddy, learned counsel holding for Sri Krishna Murthy Devarakonda, advocate on record for appellant, Sri S.Ravi learned senior counsel for respondent no.5, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (AP) and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology (AP). 2. This appeal is against the order dated 19.04.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in WPMP No. 55131 of 2015 in W P No. 42753 of 2015, whereby the appellant’s miscellaneous petition for interim order pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition came to be dismissed. We have perused the order. It is a well reasoned order running into about 7 pages. Appellant during vacation, made an attempt to seek interim order. However, his efforts were in vain. The Division Bench in the vacation on 12.5.2016 at the request of the learned counsel for appellant posted the writ appeal on 1.6.2016. After having failed to obtain any interim order in the vacation, the appellant filed a civil suit bearing O.S. No. 137 of 2016 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki on 3.6.2016. Mr.S.Ravi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 placed a copy of the suit on record and after inviting our attention to the averments therein, submitted that the appellant has suppressed from the Court below, the pendency of writ petition and the order impugned in the present writ appeal. We have perused the plaint and we find there is no whisper about the writ petition and interim order, impugned in the present appeal. We find subject matter of the suit and the writ petition is one and the same and even the averments are similar. In this back-drop and for detailed reasons recorded by the learned single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending stand dismissed. No costs. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant would be satisfied if the learned single Judge is requested to hear and decide the writ petition expeditiously. Hearing of the writ petition is expedited. ___________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ___________________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 7.6.2016 Tvk/kkm HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 314 of 2016 Date: 7.6.2016 

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.

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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.