Eda Suryanarayana Reddy vs Shaik Yunus Sharief
2022 Latest Caselaw 2856 AP

      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
  MAIN CASE No: S.A.NO.265 OF 2022
                                      PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl.
                                                                                                              OFFICE
No
                                                                                                               NOTE
          DATE
 .

                                                          ORDER

1. 27.06.2022 KSR,J

S.A.NO.265 OF 2022

The plaintiff in O.S.No.847 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada is the appellant herein. He filed the above suit against the 2nd respondent herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.7 Lakhs on the basis of a promissory notice, dated 01-11-2016. The respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement. The plea of the respondent was that he repaid the money and plaintiff failed to return the promissory note. The plaintiff examined Pws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. The respondent examined Dws.1 to 3 and marked Ex.B-1. After an elaborate trial, the trial court decreed the suit by judgment and decree, dated 03-01-2020. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed A.S.No.52 of 2020 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The appellate court reversed the judgment by way of judgment dated 25-10-2021 holding that there is a variance with regard to oral evidence adduced by the witnesses. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present Second Appeal.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the following substantial question of law,

"Whether the finding of the lower appellate court was vitiated for non- consideration of the evidence and misreading of the evidence adduced by both the parties?"

ADMIT the second Appeal.

_________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J I.A.NO.1 OF 2022

This application is filed seeking injunction restraining the respondent from alienating and creating third party interest in respect of the suit schedule property in I.A.No.742 of 2018 in O.S.No.847 of 2018 pending disposal of the Second Appeal. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that pending suit, there was an order in I.A.No.742 of 2018 directing the respondent to furnish the security to the extent of suit claim, failing which conditional attachment should follow. As such, till disposal of the Appeal, the attachment order was in force.

In that view of the matter, there shall be an injunction, as prayed for, till disposal of the Second Appeal.

Notice.

_________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J

TSNR Sl.

OFFICE No NOTE DATE .

ORDER