S.Venkat Reddy v. Smt Tummapudi Naga Padrna
[ 3379 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD I i It THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 134 OF 2021 Appeal Under Order-XLlll, Rule-1(r) of the CPC against the Order and Decree Dated 06.11.2023 made in lA.No.B79 of 2021 in OS.No.169 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge -cum- Family Court, Medchel-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.
Between:
S.Venkat Reddy, S/o Late S.Yadhi Reddy, Occ.Business, Rl/o H.No.1-9-3241112, V.N.
Kushaiguda, ECIL, Medchal-Malkajgiri District aged Reddy about 43 Nagar years, Colony, ...AppellanUPetitioner/Plaintiff AND Smt Tummapudi Naga Padrna, w/o T.Sridhar Rao, aged about 46 years, Occ Government employee, R/o Flat No.5204, Block-V, Panchavati Apartment, Pragathi Nagar, Nizampet-S00072 Medchal-Malakjgiri District. Sri Appidi Ashok Reddy, s/o A.Lingareddy, aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, H.No-6-'1 08/3, Sri Ramalingeshwara Nagar Colony, Nagaram50130'l Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist., Sri Ratnapu Jaya Prakash Goud, Son of Ratnapu Janardhan Goud, aged about 50 years, occ. Business, H.No.'l 1-5-454/21201 , Sri Sai Raghavendra Nilayam, L.B. Nagar Municipal Office, Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.-500035.
...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Order 39 Rule - 1 & 2 R/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, servants or persons clairning through them from alienating-or selling the suit schedule property in O.S.No.169 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, MedchalMalkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, pending disposal of the CMA.No._2024.
lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Order - 1 Rule 10 Riw Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead respondent No.4 herein as respondent No.4 in CMA No 13412024 and interlocutory applications therein, pending disposal of the CMA No. 13412024.
/ Counsel for the Appellant : Sri J Prabhakar representing Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R Dheeraj Singh The Court delivered the following: Judgment
t/ THE TIOI{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HOT{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CTVIL MISCELLAITE'OUS APPEAL TTo.134 of 2o.24 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAriI KOsIIyl The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 06.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.879 of 2O2t in O.S.No. t69 of 2O2L by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Medchel Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.
2.
Heard Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.K.Kalyani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for respondents. perused the material available on record.
3.
Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has dismissed the petition filed under Order 39 Rule I & 2 read with Section 15 I of CPC by the plaintiffs seeking for ad_ interim injunction against the defendants restraining them from alienating or creating third party interest in respect of the Suit schedule property is concerned.
4.
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that
subsequent to the dismissal of the petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, the defendants have further aliendted the property to the proposed 4th respondent.
5.
On the previous dated of hearing, we have issued notice. The notice issued have come back with a note that the addressee unclaimed the same, which would amount to proper service. Even the registered notice which was issued to the proposed respondent No.4 shows that the registered notice has been duly served upon the proposed respondent No.4. Even then, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.4 inspite of proper service. It has been informed by the counsel for the respondents that the suit by nor.r' has progressed and has reached to the stage of trial .
6.
Given the fact that the suit has reached the stage of trial and the defendants already alienated the suit schedule property to the proposed respondent No.4, we are of the considered opinion that no lruitful purpose would be served in keeping the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal pending any further, rather it can be disposed ol at this juncture holding that since property stands alienateci to the proposed respondent No.4, let
respondent No.4 sha-Il not further alienate the property till finalizing of the suit before the trial court. 7.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of. Considering the fact that the suit itself is of the year 2021, subject to the cooperation rendered by all the parties, the trial court is expected to conclude the suit at the earliest. It is further clarilied t that while deciding the suit, the trial court shall not in any manner get infludnced by the order of this Court As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
sd/- MoHD. ts AIL ASSISTANT REGIS RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ To,
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge -cum- Family Court, MedchelMalkajgiri District at Kushaiguda 2 One CC to Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri R Dheeraj Singh, Advocate [OPUCI
4. Two CD Copies ADI(ghw
I I HIGH COURT DATED:0311012024 -.----=-':!
1 :'ii S f,i;U oIr I (i uEI !,il+ t;
.i .,+"1/ .1 o
JUDGMENT
CMA.No.134 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE CMA ..{iot w4(+ul u