Yeddula Vijay Kumar Reddy, Uday Kumar Reddy ,Vijay Kumar,Kumar v. Buchipoina Venkata Ramana , Venkata Ramudu

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD Between:

Yeddula Vijay Kumar Reddy @ Uday Kumar Reddy @ Vijay Kumar @ Kumar S/o.Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged 50 years, Occ: Private Employee, Hindu, R/o.Shankarapuram village and post, Proddatur mandal, Kadapa district, A.P.

...

Appellant And Buchipoina Venkata Ramana @ Venkata Ramudu, Aged about 38 years, Hindu, Occ: Business, R/o.Shankarapuram Village and post, Proddatur mandal, Kadapa district, A.P.

and four others ...

Respondents Counsel for the Appellant :

Mr.V.Nitesh Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr. G.Ramachandra Reddy The Court made the following:

Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against order dated 29.12.2017 in I.A.No.2298 of 2016 in A.S.No.70 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. 2.

The counsel for the respondents filed a Memo. to the effect that respondent No.3 has expired on 19.06.2018. However, the counsel did not furnish the details of the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3, in spite of Memo. dated 20.07.2018 filed by the counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is exempted from the requirement of bringing on record, the legal representatives of respondent No.3 under Order XXII Rule 4 (4) C.P.C. 3.

The appellant had filed O.S.No.175 of 2014 seeking permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After full fledged trial, the trial court dismissed the said suit by judgment dated 28.10.2016. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed A.S.No.70 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. In the said appeal, the appellant has filed I.A.No.2298 of 2016, seeking temporary injunction. On appreciation of elements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the lower appellate court has dismissed the I.A., pending the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the said

order, the unsuccessful appellant has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal.

4.

After hearing Mr.V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case to interfere with the order of the lower court. Admittedly, the appellant did not have an order of injunction during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, having been unsuccessful in the suit, the appellant cannot be placed in a better position in the appeal, than he was during the pendency of the suit.

5.

In the above view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. It is however, made clear that dismissal of this appeal shall not influence the lower appellate court while disposing of A.S.No.70 of 2016 and instead, it shall dispose of the appeal, on its own merits. 6.

As a sequel to the dismissal of the C.M.A., I.A.No.1 of 2018 stands dismissed as infructuous.

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) _____________________ (Gudiseva Shyam Prasad,J) Date: 13th August, 2018 msb