Chitturi Satyanarayana Died vs Maddepati Srinivasa Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 1004 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1004 AP
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chitturi Satyanarayana Died vs Maddepati Srinivasa Rao on 19 February, 2021

Bench: B Krishna Mohan

[ 3233 ]

(SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE :
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
SECOND APPEAL NO: 46 OF 2021

Between:
1. Chitturi Satyanarayana (Died)
2. Chitturi Bhagya Ratnam, W/o late Satyanarayana, 63 years, Housewife'.
Velivennu, Tanuku, West Godavari District | res
-_,,,Appellant/
Respondent/
Defendant

   

AND

Maddepati Srinivasa Rao, S/o Raja Rao, 41 years Business, Tanuku, West Godavari
District
...Respondent/
Appellant/
Plaintiff

WHEREAS the Appellants above named through their Advocate Sri
S.SRIVENKATESH presented this Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, against the
Judgment and Decree dated 29.12.2020 in A.S.No.90 of 2015 on the file of the IV
Additional District Judge, Tanuku in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated
24.09.2013 in O.S.No.748 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Tanuku.

AND WHEREAS the High Court upon perusing the petition and memorandum of
grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S.Srivenkatesh, Advocate
for the Petitioner, directed issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause as
to why this SECOND APPEAL should not be admitted. |
You viz:

Maddepati Srinivasa Rao, S/o Raja Rao, Tanuku, West Godavari District

are be and hereby directed to show cause either appearing in person or through an
Advocate, as to why in the circumstances set out in the petition and the memorandum
of grounds filed therewith (copy enclosed) this SECOND APPEAL should not be
admitted.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the
operation of Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.90 of 2015 dated 29.12.2020 passed by
the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, pending disposal of SA No. 46 of 2021, on the
file of the High Court.

The Court made the following:
ORDER:

"Admit.

Notice to the respondent.

The 2"! Appeal arises against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.90 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku dated 29.12.2020

/ reversing the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.748 of 2007 on the file of the |

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku dated 24.09.2013.

The 2™ appellant herein is the 24 respondent in the lower appellate Court and the 2"! defendant in the suit. The respondent herein is the appellant before the lower appellate Court and the plaintiff in the suit.

The plaintiff initiated the action in O.S.No.748 of 2007 on the file of | Additional Junior civil Judge, Tanuku seeking permanent injunction against the defendants in interfering with the plaint schedule property consisting of Door Numbers 12-30-8 and 12-30-9 in Tanuku Village, West Godavari District covering an extent of 375 square yards with boundaries as mentioned in the suit schedule property. Upon contesting of the matter, the Trial Court dismissed the suit vide its Judgment dated 24.09.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.90 of 2015 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku. Upon hearing the matter, the lower appellate Court allowed the said appeal granting permanent injunction in favour of the appellant before it in respect of the suit schedule property vide its Judgment dated 29.12.2020. Assailing the same, the 2™ defendant filed the 2 appeal before this Court raising substantial question of law as follows.

'Whether the appreciaton and finding of the lower Appellate Court in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is perverse.'.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/2™ defendant that he is in possession and enjoyment of the portion of the suit schedule property bearing door No.12-30-8 and granting relief to that extent also by the lower appellate Court for the plaintiff is violative of law and causes hardship. --

In view of the above said circumstances, there shall be an order of status- quo to be maintained as on today with respect to the door No.12-30-8 of the suit schedule property pending further orders.

The learned counsel for the appellants is permitted to take out personal notice to the respondent and file proof of service in the Registry, within a period of three(3) weeks from today.

. a

List the matter after four(4) weeks." |

Sd/-T.Madhavi ITTRUE COPYI/

: ' SECTION OFFICER

To,

The IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku

The I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku

Maddepati Srinivasa Rao, S/o Raja Rao, Tanuku, West Godavari District (by RPAD- along with a copy of petition and memorandum of grounds)

One CC to Sri. S.Srivenkatesh, Advocate [OPUC]

One spare copy

OnN>

| ASSISTANT REGISTRAR |