Kaduri Lakshminarayana v. Chinnari Satyanarayana
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 12 Dec 2011
- Bench
- RAJA ELANGO
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Second Appeal is disposed of with a direction to
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 100
- A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act s. 41
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellant to vacate the suit schedule premises on or before
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO SECOND APPEAL NO.557 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 11.03.2011 passed in A.S.No.6 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, whereunder and whereby, the judgment and decree, dated 22.03.2010, passed in Original Suit No.130 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, were confirmed.
Originally O.S.No.130 of 2008 was filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the appellant herein from the suit schedule premises and also for damages. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit directing the appellant herein to vacate the suit schedule premises within three (3) months from the date of judgment. It was further directed that the appellant shall pay damages @ Rs.4,600/- per month from 21.08.2008 till he vacates and handover the same to the respondent. The amount deposited into the Court by the appellant shall be adjusted towards damages awarded. The appellant also shall pay the Court fee on the damages to be calculated @ Rs.4,600/- per month from 21.08.2008 till the date of judgment within ten days. The appellant also shall pay the Court fee on future damages from the date of judgment till he vacates and handover the schedule premises at the time of execution of decree as required under Section 41 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act. On appeal, the same was confirmed.
Heard both sides.
Learned counsel for the appellant filed an undertaking affidavit before this Court which reads as follow:- “1. I submit that I filed the above Second Appeal against the eviction decree passed by the Lower Court which was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. “2. I submit that I am running a shop in Readymade Garments in the demised premises and I invested huge amounts for furniture and other material. I further submit I gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance and as per the recitals of the lease deed the respondent agreed to return the said amount at the time of vacation of the demised premises. I am regular in depositing the rents and there are no arrears.
3. I submit that the Hon’ble Court may kind enough to grant me one year time to vacate the demised premises and I hereby undertake that I will vacate the premises without the intervention of the courts after the expiry of the said period of one year”
In view of the undertaking affidavit stated above, the appellant is directed to vacate the premises on or before 30.04.2012. Learned counsel for the respondent also agreed regarding the advance amount paid by the appellant and agreed to repay the same after deducting the rents for the following months and also if any thing to be deducted at the time of vacating the premises.
Operative part
Accordingly, the Second Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellant to vacate the suit schedule premises on or before
30.04.2012. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J DECEMBER 12, 2011 YVL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO SECOND APPEAL NO.557 OF 2011 YVL
12.12.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Second Appeal is disposed of with a direction to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100; A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act — s. 41.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 12 Dec 2011. The bench was RAJA ELANGO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.