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

2016 Supreme(AP) 432

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
Mundladinne Gopal Reddy – Appellant
Versus
P. Ramachandra Reddy – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:J. Janakirami Reddy, Advocate.

Common Order:

1. The revision petitioner in these three revisions is the sole defendant/respondent in (i) I.A.No.473 of 2014 in I.A.no.182 of 2014 in O.S.no.146 of 2014; (ii) I.A.no.472 of 2014 in I.A.no.187 of 2014 in O.S.no.148 of 2014; and (iii) I.A.No.490 of 2014 in I.A.no.180 of 2014 in O.S.no.144 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the material record.

3. The facts, which led to filing of these three revision petitions, may be stated as follows:

The plaintiffs/petitioners in the aforementioned three applications in the said three suits are different. However, the said plaintiffs in the said suits filed the said suits respectively for specific performance of respective agreements of sale. In the three pending suits, the three applications viz., I.A.Nos.182, 187 and 180 of 2014 are respectively filed by the respective plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunctions in respect of the schedule properties in the said suits. Pending enquiry in those applications, the first mentioned I.A.nos.473 of 2014, 472 of 2014












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