SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(AP) 432

G.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO
Acme Tiles and Building Products – Appellant
Versus
B. Sudershan – Respondent


G. V. L. NARASIMHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff against the order passed in I. A. No. 1410 of 1992 in O. S. No. 6258 of 1991 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-plaintiff filed O. S. No. 6258 of 1991 on the file of the IX assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents- defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Along with the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a petition i. A. No. 1131 of 1991 under Order 39, Rule 1, CPC praying for an interim injunction.

( 3 ) ON an appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties and also the commissioner s report, the trial Court partly allowed i. A. No. 1131 of 1991 with the following observations: (A) The respondents 1 to 4 and their men are restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner-plaintiff over the open land marked as 11,12 and 13 i. e. ,to the extent of 13 from the wall and also the leased out constructed premises of the petitioner-pla

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top