HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.A.S.No.977 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
02-05-2022 SRK, J
I.A.No.4 of 2022
This petition is filed by the petitioner,
who is the 1st respondent in the main
appeal, seeking to vacate the interim injunction granted on 02.08.2019 in the main appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/appellant is present. On the earlier occasion also, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/appellant is not present.
1st respondent herein filed Original Suit No.228 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein, for declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property and for consequential injunction.
The Court below dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent herein filed the main appeal. He also filed A.S.M.P.No.2415 of 2017 in the said appeal seeking the relief of interim injunction restraining the respondents in the appeal from alienating 2
the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the appeal.
On 02.08.2019, this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/appellant, granted interim injunction restraining the respondents in the appeal from interfering with the suit schedule property on condition of depositing suit costs, while directing to list the appeal on 16.8.2019.
It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the present petition that A.S.M.P.No.2415 of 2017 was filed by the 1st respondent/appellant seeking the relief of interim injunction restraining the respondents in the appeal from alienating the plaint schedule property. However, inadvertently, interim injunction was granted on 02.08.2019, restraining the respondents in the appeal from interfering with the suit schedule property, and that taking advantage of the said order, 1st respondent is trying to enter into the suit land and also gave a police report against the petitioner.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court, after recording a categorical finding that 1st respondent/appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule property, dismissed the suit and hence he prays to vacate the interim order dated 02.8.2019.
3
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the material on record, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to modify the order dated 02.8.2019, to the extent that the respondents in the main appeal are restrained from alienating the suit schedule property instead of respondents from interfering with the suit schedule property.
With the above modification, the petition is disposed of.
_______ SRK,J KLPD 4 5
