Or.39 rule 1 and 2 cpc - urgent notice - when the trial Court in its discretion has directed issuance of urgent notice to the respondents without immediately addressing the request of the petitioner. It cannot be stated that the relief, as such sought in the petition, was refused. Before taking any decision in the matter, the trial Court intends to hear the other side

 Or.39 rule 1 and 2 cpc - urgent notice - when the trial Court in its discretion has directed issuance of urgent notice to the respondents without immediately addressing the request of the petitioner. It cannot be stated that the relief, as such sought in the petition, was refused. Before taking any decision in the matter, the trial Court intends to hear the other side

AP HIGH COURT

1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1268 of 2020

Kanagala Lakshmi

Versus

Ratakonda Anasuya,

ORDER:

1. Heard. Sri. Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the

Petitioner.

2. The complaint of the petitioner is against the order passed

by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jaggaiahpet in I.A.No.160 of

2020 in O.S.No.126 of 2020 in directing urgent notice to the

respondents. The above petition was filed under order XXXIX Rules 1&2

R/w. Section 151 CPC with a prayer to grant temporary injunction

restraining the respondents from alienating the property in dispute.

3. Now the request of the petitioner is to grant an interim

order of the nature sought in the trial Court in I.A.No.160 of 2020 in

O.S.126 of 2020 while also questioning the order of the trial Court dated

26.11.2020.

4. On the face of it, this Civil Revision Petition is not

maintainable. Any order passed U/order.39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is

amenable to appeal under Order 43 of CPC. At the same time it should

be noted that when the trial Court in its discretion has directed issuance

of urgent notice to the respondents without immediately addressing the

request of the petitioner. It cannot be stated that the relief, as such

sought in the petition, was refused. Before taking any decision in the

matter, the trial Court intends to hear the other side.

5. When such is the scope of the order, now sought to be

impugned in this petition, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has

made out any cause or reason to approach this Court under Article 227 

2

of Constitution of India. It is not a case where the supervisory

jurisdiction of this Court needs to be invoked. Hence it has to be

dismissed.

5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

costs.

 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

____________________

M.VENKATA RAMANA, J

08.12.2020

Tm 

3