Vepuri Mallikarjuna Rao vs Gaddapati Sitaramanjaneyulu 3 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1796 AP

     5THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.275 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

Plaintiff is the appellant and this Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C. assailing the

order dated 30.01.2017 of learned XV Additional District Judge,

Nuzvid in I.A.No.902 of 2016 in O.S.No.80 of 2016.

Respondents herein are the defendants in the suit.

2. O.S.No.80 of 2016 was filed for declaration and

permanent injunction. Pending suit, an interim injunction was

sought for under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. by the

plaintiff by filing I.A.No.902 of 2016. After due hearing, the said

application was dismissed. Assailing that, the present

miscellaneous appeal was preferred.

3. Earlier, this Court called for a report about the stage and

status of the trial in O.S.No.80 of 2016. Report dated

25.03.2023 of the learned XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid

is placed on record. It indicates that the issues in the suit were

settled and trial commenced and plaintiff's side evidence was

over and the matter has been coming up for cross-examination

of DW.1.

Dr. VRKS, J C.M.A.No.275 of 2017

4. Learned counsel for appellant is in attendance and

submits that this Court may dispose of this appeal with a

direction to the trial Court to adjudicate the suit in accordance

with law uninfluenced by any observations it had made in

I.A.No.902 of 2016.

5. The submission is fair, reasonable and in accordance with

law.

6. All observations made by any Court while deciding any

interlocutory application are all tentative and confined to those

applications. The rights and duties of the parties, the facts and

the law applicable have to be determined by the Court in

accordance with law based on the material gathered during the

course of trial. While deciding the main suit, Courts are not

expected to get influenced by any observations that were made

by the Court in the interlocutory applications. This has been

the law. A reference in this regard can be made to Jaikishan

Jagwani v. Britomatics Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.1 and Rajbir

Singh v. Rajbir Singh2.

1987 Supp SCC 72

1986 Supp SCC 736

Dr. VRKS, J C.M.A.No.275 of 2017

7. Therefore, without going into the merits of this

miscellaneous appeal, as requested by the learned counsel for

appellant, this appeal is disposed of.

8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed

and the learned XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid shall

complete the trial in O.S.No.80 of 2016 in accordance with law

as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the suit based on the

facts and law available from the trial uninfluenced by its own

observations made in I.A.No.902 of 2016. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 03.04.2023 Ivd

Dr. VRKS, J C.M.A.No.275 of 2017

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.275 of 2017

Date: 03.04.2023

Ivd