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

2019 Supreme(AP) 218

G.SHYAM PRASAD
P. Veerraghavulu – Appellant
Versus
Parla Venkanna – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Rajesh Babu
For the Respondents: V. Subrahmanyam

ORDER :

G. Shyam Prasad, J.

1. This revision is arising out of the order, dated 26.2.2018 passed in IA No. 216 of 2018 in OS No. 140 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs who have filed OS No. 140 of 2011 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule path way.

3. The revision petitioners have filed IA No. 279 of 2011 under Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC in the above suit for grant of interim injunction, and IA No. 216 of 2018 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint. The amendment sought in plaint to add the Paragraph 7(a) after the Paragraph 7 in the plaint which reads as under:

    "7(a) the defendants in and around the month of May, 2011 constructed compound wall by abstracting the plaint schedule cart way at E and F points taking advantage of their strength and plaintiffs weakness. The plaintiffs could not resist such illegal effort made by the defendants and therefore the plaintiffs lost their egress and ingress to reach Rajaveedhi through A

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