Civil Revision Petition No. 2529 of 2010 · High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 39 rr. 1, 2
Judgment
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against judgment and decree, dated 28.04.2010, passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar, in C.M.A.No.5 of 2010, wherein and whereby the order, dated
29.03.2010, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla in I.A.No.44 of 2010 in I.A.No.38 of 2010 in I.A.No.66 of 2009 in O.S.No.19 of 2009 was set aside. The trial Court allowed I.A.No.44 of 2010 directing the respondents to restore possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioner by 31.03.2010 and also hand over the material and furniture, which were removed by the respondents, failing which, the matter will be dealt with as per the process of law. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant of the respondents and was running a Bakery by paying the rents regularly to the respondents. As there was a threat of eviction, the petitioner was constrained to institute a suit i.e., O.S.No.19 of 2009 and in the said suit, he also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking
temporary injunction. The trial Court passed an order of status quo on 11.02.2010, but, however, as the respondents were trying to interfere with his peaceful possession, the petitioner was constrained to file another interlocutory application being I.A.No.40 of 2010 seeking police protection and the same was ordered on 29.03.2010. The said order was questioned by the respondents by way of filing C.M.A.No.5 of 2010 and the lower appellate Court set aside the said order vide its judgment dated
Operative part
28.04.2010. As stated supra, the same is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notices are served on the respondents, the respondents have not put in their appearance. It appears, the lower appellate Court relied on an order, dated 30.04.2009, passed by this Court in W.P.No.8648 of 2009, which is between the same parties in the present Civil Revision Petition. However, the fact remains that there was an order of status quo granted by the trial Court during the pendency of the said suit and even this Court while ordering notice before admission on 04.03.2010, granted interim stay, which was extended from time to time. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner is having an order of interim stay in his favour and the same in my, considered view, needs to be continued during the pendency of the said suit. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo as on today during the pendency of the said suit. As the said suit is for injunction simplicitor, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 20th August 2010
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 39 rr. 1, 2.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 20 Aug 2010. The bench was GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA.
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.