Muriki Venkatappa, vs Muriki Balakrishna,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1627 AP

                            HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH


MAIN CASE NO:       S.A.No.165 of 2022
                                 PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N      Date                             ORDER                           OFFICE
 o.                                                                         NOTE




       06.04.2022 BSB, J
                                     I.A.No.1 of 2022

                          This petition is filed to dispense with the
                  filing of the certified copy of decree and
                  judgment dated 31.08.2015 in O.S.No.212 of
                  2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
                  Piler.
                          The petition is allowed dispensing with
                  filing of the certified copy for the present.

                                                   _________________
                                                   B.S.BHANUMATHI,J

                                   S.A.No.165 of 2022

                      Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
                      The appellant before this Court filed suit for
                  permanent injunction against the respondents.

The suit was dismissed framing the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. When the plaintiff filed the appeal and the same was also dismissed framing the point for consideration i.e. whether or not the appeal in issue require allowing. Aggrieved by the dismissal of both suit and the appeal, the plaintiff preferred the second appeal before this Court on the following substantial questions of law. a. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in not framing points for consideration in Appeal as mandated under Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. and in not discussing all the issues as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gannmani Anasuya and ors vs. Parvathi Amarendra Chowdhary and ors. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 296 and Iruvanthi Gopinantha Rao and Ors. vs. Vadlapudi Narayana and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) ALD 258?

b. Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is sustainable when the finding arrived by the lower Appellate Court is perverse without there being any proper evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 1 SCC 158?

c. Whether the lower appellate court based its judgment on the irrelevant consideration of law ignoring the relevant material for granting permanent injunction?

d. Whether the Decree and Judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court is sustainable for non consideration of material evidence i.e., Ex.A5 to A36, Ex.A37 to A42, Ex.A43 to A47, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1997 (1) SCC 749 and the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 2003 (2) ALD 593?

The main contention of the appellant is non-framing of points for consideration by the appellate Court and also improper appreciation of evidence on record. In the light of the above questions of law raised, it is a fit case to admit the appeal.

ADMIT.

Notice to respondents.

Post on 29.04.2022.

Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to take out personal service of notice to the respondents through RPAD and file proof thereof.

_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI,J I.A.No.2 of 2022

This petition is filed to suspend the operation of the decree and judgment dated 19.01.2022 in A.S.No.16 of 2015 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Piler as well as the decree and judgment dated 31.08.2015 in O.S.No.212 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Piler.

Notice to respondents.

Post on 29.04.2022.

Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to take out personal service of notice to the respondents through RPAD and file proof thereof.

_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI,J PNV