NARESH KUMAR JAIN v. BASANT KUMAR KOTARI
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 Jun 2026
- Bench
- D RAMESH, D RAMESH SRI BALAJI MEDAMALLI, BALAJI MEDAMALLI, ADDL DISTRICT
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the said submission, the appeal is dismissed as
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the said submission, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40/2013
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40/2013 Between: NARESH KUMAR JAIN, S/O.LATE PAVAN KUMAR JAIN 1. NARESH KUMAR JAIN, S/O.LATE PAVAN KUMAR JAIN NARESH KUMAR JAIN, S/O.LATE PAVAN KUMAR JAIN BUSINESS R/O. SRINIVAS NAGAR BEHIND NCS THEATRE BUSINESS R/O. SRINIVAS NAGAR BEHIND NCS THEATRE BUSINESS R/O. SRINIVAS NAGAR BEHIND NCS THEATRE VIZIANAGARAM VIZIANAGARAM ...APPELLANT
APPELLANT
AND
1. BASANT KUMAR KOTARI, S/o. Sanwal Raj Kothari Business BASANT KUMAR KOTARI, S/o. Sanwal Raj Kothari Business BASANT KUMAR KOTARI, S/o. Sanwal Raj Kothari Business and C/o. R/o. Srinivas Nagar Behinc NCS Theatre Vizianagaam R/o. Srinivas Nagar Behinc NCS Theatre Vizianagaam and C/o. Seven Star Electricals Chinnaveedhi Vizianagaram Seven Star Electricals Chinnaveedhi Vizianagaram ...RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT
Appeal Under Section_____against orders Appeal Under Section_____against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CMAMP 49 OF 2013 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CMAMP 49 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo rt of the petition, the High Court may stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interi injunction restraining the respondent from be pleased to grant interi injunction restraining the respondent from be pleased to grant interi injunction restraining the respondent from making any constructions in petition schedule property which is subject making any constructions in petition schedule property which is subject making any constructions in petition schedule property which is subject matter of OS No. 8 of 2010 on the file of the 1st Addl. District Judge, matter of OS No. 8 of 2010 on the file of the 1st Addl. District Judge, matter of OS No. 8 of 2010 on the file of the 1st Addl. District Judge, ianagaram pending disposal of the above Appeal. Vizianagaram pending disposal of the above Appeal. 2 Counsel for the Appellant:
1. M S R SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent:
1. N SIVA REDDY The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40/2013
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Ramesh) The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, in I.A.No.550/2010 in O.S. No. 8 of 2010.
Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submitted that the main suit has been disposed of. Hence, nothing remains for adjudication.
Operative part
In view of the said submission, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
29.06.2026 TJN __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH ___________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 4 22 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40/2013 TJN
29.06.2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the said submission, the appeal is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Jun 2026. The bench was D RAMESH, D RAMESH SRI BALAJI MEDAMALLI, BALAJI MEDAMALLI, ADDL DISTRICT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.