Madiga Lazarus vs S Raghavendra Reddy And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7927 AP

                HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                               MAIN CASE : S.A.No.251 of 2022
                                      PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.      Date                                  ORDER                                  OFFICE
No.                                                                                    NOTE

      18.10.2022
                   SRS,J
                                           I.A.No.1 of 2021
                           This petition is filed to condone the delay of 97
                   days in filing the second appeal.

                           This Court ordered notice and permitted the
                   learned counsel for the petitioner to serve personal
                   notices on the respondents.

Proof of service is filed vide USR No.65079 of 2022.

No representation on behalf of the respondent.

For the reasons mentioned in Para No.4 of the affidavit, delay of 97 days in filing the second appeal is condoned.

This petition is ordered accordingly.

______ SRS,J S.A.No.251 of 2021 1st plaintiff being the appellant filed the present second appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 20.08.2019 passed in A.S.No.22 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 18.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.182 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

The suit in O.S.No.182 of 2011 was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, anybody on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs.

The trial Court decreed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred A.S.No.22 of 2018 and the same was dismissed on 20.08.2019 confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.182 of 2011. Therefore, the present Second Appeal is filed by the 1st defendant.

Heard.

ADMIT.

The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration.

1) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is vitiated in not framing a point for consideration under Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C?

2) Whether the Courts below considered the evidence of plaintiff in proper perspective? If not, the judgment under appeal is vitiated?

______ SRS,J KA