Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K. Rajasekhar vs K. Syam Sunder on 8 February, 2021
Bench: M.Venkata Ramana
\
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT |AMARAVATI
MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ENTY ONE
: PRESENT: |
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
|.A. No. 1 of 2020
IN
A. S. No. 139 of 2020
Between:- aay
K. Rajashekhar, S/o. late K. Nagi Reddy. wae Petitioner/Respogdent.ccs 40" 4
(Appellant in A.S. No. 139\8¢ 2020 sy A
on the file of the High Cowst)-
AND wee
K. Shyam Sunder, S/o. late K. Nagi Reddy, Occ : Business,
R/o. H.No. 43/238 A1-2, N.R. Peta, Kurnool. ...Respondent
(Respondent in -do-)
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : Sri P. Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel
for Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : Sri V. Datttreyagoud
Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to suspend
the operation of the Judgment and Decree dt : 27-09-2019 in O.S.No. 96 of
2014 on the file of | Additional District Court, Kurnool , pending disposal of A.S.
No. 139 of 2020 on the file of High Court.
The Court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to
show cause as to why this application should not be complied with, made the
following order.(The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of
notice in the case).
ORDER:-
"Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Shafath
Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri V.Dattatreya Goud, learned counsel for the respondent.
The appellant suffered a decree for possession in this matter.
The decree of the trial Court directs him to vacate the disputed
property and hand over its peaceful possession to the respondent on
or before 27.12.2019. In the event of failure of the appellant to
vacate within the time specified, the respondent was given liberty to
vacate the same through process of law, as per this decree.
The decree as well as the Judgment are in question in this
appeal. Particularly, the close relationship in between the parties,
being natural brothers, has significant bearing to grant the relief
sought in this petition.
Admittedly, the appellant is in possession of the disputed
property. There is no direction by the decree of the trial Court as
well as in the appeal for ascertaining mesne profits.
Sri V.Dattatreya Goud, learned counsel for the respondent
contended that in the event of granting the relief sought in this
petition, reasonable terms be imposed including directing the
appellant/petitioner to deposit certain amount for use and occupation
of the disputed property and further contended that it is well known
that an appeal of the year 2020 would not reach the stage of final
hearing for a few years more. Relying on Atmaram Properties Private
Limited vs. Federal Motors Private Limited 2005(1) SCC 705, it is
further contended that such course is permitted for an Appellate
Court, even though the decree of the trial court is silent in this
context.
Contd...2...
-2-
However, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent distinguishes the Judgment of the Supreme Court mainly
on the ground that the facts concerned to the said case relate to a
claim between landlord and tenant under Rent Control Laws and
therefore, this ruling cannot be applied to the present case.
Nonetheless, since the matter has to be re-appreciated in this
appeal filed under Order 96 CPC, it is not desirable to impose such
condition and in view of the close relationship between the Parties.
The facts in dispute in this case are also presenting a situation where
such conditions need not be imposed in as much as the original_owner
of this property admittedly is the appellant.
Therefore, in order to see that till the disposal of this appeal,
the property is maintained in similar status as was obtaining on the
date of filing of the suit, there shall be interim stay of all further
proceedings including the execution of the decree in 0.5.96 of 2014,
dated 27.09.2019 on the file of the Court of learned | Additional
District Judge, Kurnool until further orders." -
LY
Sd/-M.RameshBabu.
EGISTRAR
/} TRUE COPY // Se
SECTION OFFICER
for
To
1.The | Additional District Judge, Kurnool. ~
2.K. Shyam Sunder, S/o. late K. Nagi Reddy, Occ :Business, --
R/o. H.No. 43/238 A1-2, N.R. Peta, Kurnool. (BY RPAD) ~
3.One CC to Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, Advocate (OPUC)
4.One spare copy.
TKK
my
HIGH COURT
MVR.J
DT.08-02-2021.
ORDER
|.A.No. 1 of 2020
IN
A.S.No. 139 of 2020.
INTERIM STAY
My
