Sri Pavithra Engineers Pvt. Ltd., v. Maddineni Srinivasa Rao And Another

\

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1325 0F 2012 AppealUnderorder43RulelofCPCagainsttheJudgmenUDecreein 1.A.No.960 0f 2011 in o.S.No.189 0f 2011 dated 29.10.2012 0n the file of the court of the ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad' Between:

SriPavithraEngineersP\i't.Ltd.,shalivahanaNagar,Hyderabad-73,Rep'by its Chairman C.V.Subba Rao ..AppellanUPetitioner/Plantiff AND

1. Maddineni Srinivasa Rao, S/o.M.Sitaramaiah, aged 39 years-' Occ:-Business, Rl/o.Flat No.404, Block No.303, SMR Vinoy Acropolis Apts, Opp Jayabher'' Silicon County, Madhapur, Kondapur, R.R.District.

2. State Bank of Hyderabad, Sanjeev Reddy Nagar Branch, Hyd', Rep' by its Branch Manager (R2 not necessary PartY)

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P. RAJA SRIPATHI RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI C.M.A.No.1325 OF 2012 JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 29.lo.2ol2 passed in I.A.No.960 of 2011 in o's.No.189 of 2011 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the subject I.A. was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.1, his men, agents, etc', from claiming bills and realisation of amount from contractors more specifically from Krishi constructions, E-73, Ground floor, Maduranagar, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad for the works executed in Madunuru Village and Madunuru Mandal, Nizamabad District pending disposal of the suit, was dismissed and interim order dated 29'03.20tL is vacated' 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the subject suit, trial had already been commenced.

4.

Since trial has been commenced in the subject suit' the Court below is'directed to expedite the trial in the subject suit.

With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of' Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs' sD/'K'sRlNlvAS{849 "/ JOINT REGISTRAR t/rRUE CoPY// & SECTION OFFICER To, .31""'tt11''t",?fl "Jii3?,ig?i,"4'J":Xl,??:*[33i'3i:' . Two CD CoPies . One SPare CoPY brr J s {

HIGH COURT DATED: 1810412022 s-iA re Cl \l\ /, I ']r'

"

?m i'i it 1[ .(

JUDGMENT

"'.), -.,rot/'

l _" -', n CMA.No.1325 of 2012 I I I DISPOSING OF THE CMA I ?o'B