Padma Shobha Rani vs P Nageshwar Rao 6 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5590 Tel

          THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                            AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.760 and 773 of 2014

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

       Since the facts of the case and the issue involved in both these

appeals are identical, both these appeals are taken up together and

are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.


2.     CMA Nos.760 and 773 of 2014, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of

CPC, are filed by the appellants/plaintiff, challenging the order of the

even date, dated 14.07.2014, passed in I.A.Nos.9 and 8 of 2013

respectively in O.S.No.860 of 2013 by the XXV Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.


3.     The subject I.A.No.9 of 2013 was filed before the Court below

under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, seeking

temporary injunction restraining the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7

from changing the nature of petition 'A' and 'B' schedule properties;

and the subject I.A.No.8 of 2013 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules

1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction

restraining the respondents, their men, supporters etc., from

alienating or creating any charge over the petition 'A' to 'F' schedule

properties.

                                        2                        Dr.SA,J & NBK,J
                                                           CMA Nos.760 & 773 of 2014

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiff and

perused the record. There is no representation for the

respondents/defendants.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, both subject

applications were dismissed by the Court below vide impugned

orders of the even date, dated 14.07.2014, on merits. Challenging

the same, the plaintiff filed both these appeals before this Court on

22.08.2014. The appellants/plaintiff was also unsuccessful in getting

any interim relief in both these appeals. It is brought to the notice of

this Court by the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiff that

before the trial Court, PW.1 was examined and documents were

marked on his behalf. It is also pertinent to state that the subject

O.S.No.860 of 2013 was filed way back in the year 2013 by the

appellants/plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of suit

schedule properties. Whether the appellants/plaintiff is entitled to a

share in the suit schedule properties as claimed, is required to be

determined in the subject suit. As adducing evidence has

commenced in the subject suit, in the interest of justice, it is not

appropriate for this Court to express any opinion on the subject

matter of these appeals. Since the subject suit is of the year 2013,

this Court is of the opinion that if the trial Court is directed to dispose

of the subject suit within a period of three (3) months from the date 3 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA Nos.760 & 773 of 2014

of receipt of a copy of this common judgment, the same would sub-

serve the ends of justice.

6. Accordingly, the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, is directed to dispose of the subject suit in

O.S.No.860 of 2013, pending on its file, within a period of three (3)

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made

clear that no opinion is expressed with regard to the merits of the

case. The Court below shall dispose of the subject O.S.No.860 of

2013, on merits, in accordance with law. Both the parties shall

cooperate for the disposal of the subject suit by the Court below,

within the time indicated above.

7. With the above directions, both these Civil Miscellaneous

Appeals are disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both these appeals

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

_______________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

02nd November, 2022 Bvv