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

J. SREENIVAS RAO
Bhattu Srinivas – Appellant
Versus
Cherukumalla Dhanasuryavathi – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2025, passed by the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, in I.A.No.162 of 2024 in O.S.No.178 of 2024, wherein the ad-interim injunction application filed by respondent No.1/complainant was allowed.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 is only contesting respondent. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.1 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

3. Heard Mr. G. Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.78 of 2024 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5/defendants therein from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, respondent No.1 also filed I.A.No.162 of 2024 seeking temporary injunction. The learned Agent to Government, without properly considering the contentions of the petitioner and without marking the documents filed by the respective parties, allowed the said application, e

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