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

2013 Supreme(AP) 126

L.NARASIMHA REDDY
A. Gopal Reddy – Appellant
Versus
R. Subramanyam Reddy – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
T.S. Anand, Counsel for the, Petitioner.
K. Mohan Rami Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The petitioner filed OS No. 491 of 2011 in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, against the respondents herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of 9 cents of land in Survey No. 419 of 2009 of Ilavarapalli Village, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District. He stated that an extent of 20 cents were owned by him and out of it, he sold 11 cents to the 2nd respondent and when he was trying to construct a compound wall enclosing 9 cents separating the sold out 11 cents, the respondents started interfering. In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the trial Court is said to have passed an order of status quo. The 1st respondent herein i.e., 1st defendant filed I.A. No. 278 of 2012 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note the existing features viz., a hut and construction of compound wall. The petitioner opposed the application. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 26.9.2012. Hence, this revision.

2. Heard Sri T.S. Anand, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent.

3. The suit filed by the petitioner is the one for the reli




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