K. Swetha v. Ch. Kodanda Rami Reddy

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY. THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI c.M.

. NO:8 oF2 Appeal under Order XLlll Rule 1 of CPC against the JudgmenU decree in lA No.317 0f 2018 in oS No.133 0f 2018 dated 18/01/2021 0n the file of the court of the V Additional District Judge, at Bhongir'

Between:.

Smt K.Swetha, ...APPELLANT AND Ch. Kodanda Rami ReddY ...RESPONDENT For the Appellant : SRI MOHD MUMTAZ PASHA, Advocate For the Respondent : SRI B.MOHAN, Advocate The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APP EAL No 89 oF2o22 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr.sA,J) This appeal, under XLIII Rule 1C.P.C., is filed by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the order, dated 18.01.2021, passed in I.A.No.317 of 2018 in O.S.No.133 of 2018 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Bhongir, whereby, the subject application filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondent/ .defendant, his men etc., from alienating or creating any charge over the'B','C'and'D'schedule properties or to deal with it in any manner, pending disposal of the main Suit, was dismissed.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record"

3. In the course of submissions, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for both sides that though the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant have i ,-.,.

Dr.SA,J & JS,J C.M.A.No.89 ot 2022 filed documents before the Court below, those documents are not marked and appreciated by the Court below, while arriving at a conclusion with regard to lhe prima facie case and balance of convenience. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the appellant/plaintiff filed as many as 20 documents in total.

4.

As seen from the material placed on record, the Court below was pleased to discuss with regard to the genuineness of the unregistered development agreement, dated 29.04.2013, by placing reliance over the expert report, dated 24,09.20t8, without marking the said documents' The Court below had not dealt with the pleadings as well as the documents produced by both the sides. While dealing with an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules l and 2 of C'P'C', the Court is bound to mark the documents filed by both the parties, in accordance with law, and the Court is also required to appreciate those documents in arriving at a conclusion, which is patently absent in the instant case. Under these circumstances, the impugned order, dated 18.01.2021, is liable to be set aside.

Dr.SA,J & JS,J C.M.A.No.89 of 2022 J 5.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aslde the impugned order, dated 18.01.2021, passed in LA.No.317 of 2018 in O.S.No.133 of 2018 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Bhongir. I.A.No.317 of 2018 is restored to its file and the Court below is directed to dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law, expeditiously, on or before 30.06.2022, after affording opportunity to both the parties, It is pertinent to state that the Court below shall mark the documents filed by both the sides, in accordance with law. It is made clear that no extension of time would be granted either to the parties or to the Court below"

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs" Sd/.M.SANTHI VARDHANI JOINT REGISTRAR (u, I //TRUE COPYII \ SECTION OFFICER To 1.

2.

a The V Additional District Judge, at Bhongir.

One CC to Sri Mumtaz Pasha, Advocate (OPUC) 9n" 99 t9 Sri B.Mohan, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies One Spare Copy \ Y 4.

5.

Kj

HIGH COURT DATED:2810412022 1H E S-,4 .i I) o 1E HAY 202 * * q-O PATC

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.89 ot 2022 ALLOWING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS.

<)/ n"

1\>