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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 9910

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, J
Ponugoti Mohan Rao – Appellant
Versus
Ponugoti Surendar Reddy – Respondent
CRP/1207/2025



THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1207 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2025 in E.P.No.31 of 2014 in O.S.No.85 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District.

2. The petitioners herein are defendants/judgment debtors. The suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for perpetual injunction and restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on 16.12.2003. However, the petitioners were trespassing into the suit schedule land, obstructing work and trying to dispossess the respondent/plaintiff from his suit schedule property.

3. The respondent/plaintiff/decree holder approached the Court and sought direction for arresting the petitioners herein. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, by order dated 25.02.2025 while allowing the petition, ordered arrest of the petitioners/judgment debtors.

4. The petitioners/judgment debtors filed an affidavit stating as follows:

“I submit that the suit schedule property and E.P schedule property is one and the same, which is allegedly situated in an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas situated in Sy.No.358/A1/2 of Uthatoor Village, Ramannapeta Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, bounded by EAST: Land of Ponugoti Rama Rao, WEST: Land of Patteda Venkataiah and others, NORTH: Land of Ponugoti Venkateswar Rao and SOUTH: Land of Gaddameedi Sathaiah. We are no way concerned with the suit schedule property.”

5. Keeping in view the affidavit filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors stating that they are no way concerned with the suit schedule property and that they will never interfere with the respondent/plaintiff’s property, the warrants issued against petitioners/judgment debtors shall stand cancelled.

6. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. In the event of the petitioners/judgment debtors interfering with the property of the respondent/plaintiff, the Court is at liberty to issue warrants. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________

K.SURENDER, J Date: 11.04.2025 PNS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1207 OF 2025 Date: 11.04.2025 PNS

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top