Madhavi Rathnam, Warangal Dist vs Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4348 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

              CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.512 of 2015

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, by the unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant, is directed against the

decree and judgment, dated 28.08.2014, of the learned I Additional

District Judge, Visakhapatnam, passed in C.M.A.No.29 of 2011,

whereby, the learned Additional District Judge, while dismissing the

afore-stated appeal, confirmed the order and decretal order, dated

01.07.2011, of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam, passed in I.A.No.334 of 2011 in O.S.No.754 of 2011.

2. I have head the submissions of Smt. D.Satyavathi, learned

counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff ('plaintiff', for

brevity), and of the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants

('defendants', for brevity). I have perused the material record.

3. The facts of the case, which are necessary to be stated as a

prelude to this order, in brief, are as follows:-

The trial Court, by order, dated 01.07.2011, dismissed the

petition of the plaintiff in I.A.No.334 of 2011, which was filed in the

afore-stated suit, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking temporary injunction

not to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of

500 square yards of house property, more fully described in the

schedule annexed to the plaint. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff

preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Court below. As

already noted, the Court below dismissed the said CMA and confirmed MSRM, J CRP No.512 of 2015

the order and the decretal order of the trial Court. Aggrieved thereof,

the plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

4. In this Revision, while assailing the decree and judgment of the

Court below passed in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, it is inter alia

urged that an opportunity may be given to the plaintiff to re-argue the

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Court below be directed to re-open

and rehear the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and dispose of the same on

its merit.

5. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that

the suit is of the year 2011 and, therefore, instead of directing the

Court below to dispose of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal afresh as

desired in the Revision, the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the

suit, which is of the year 2011, as expeditiously as possible, as such a

course would meet the ends of justice.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants endorses the

said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff.

7. Recording the said submission of the learned counsel for the

plaintiff, this Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed directing

the trial Court to dispose of O.S.No.754 of 2011, on merits and in strict

accordance with the procedure established law, as expeditiously as

possible and preferably within a period of two (02) months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ M.Seetharama Murti, J th 11 August, 2017 Bvv