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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 56251

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
Pasangulapati Govinda Rao – Appellant
Versus
Chintanippu Kotaiah – Respondent
CRP 2680/2022



THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2680 of 2022

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/respondents/defendants, aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2022 passed in I.A No.03 of 2021 in I.A No.02 of 2021 in OS No.346 of 2021 by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Khammam.

2. Notices were served on respondents – plaintiffs.

3. Notices were also served through the counsel representing the respondents before the trial court but there is no representation by the respondents.

4. Heard Smt.Ayyagari Jayasree, learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents – plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming easement right over a way in between the fields of petitioners and respondents and filed I.A No.02 of 2021 seeking temporary injunction. An ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the respondents – plaintiffs. The petitioners filed their counter in the said I.A. The same was also disposed of on merits passing a temporary injunction in favour of the respondents – plaintiffs. She further submitted that I.A No.03 of 2021 was filed by the respondents – plaintiffs seeking police protection. They filed their counter in the said application in I.A No.03 of 2021 but the trial Court without observing the same passed the impugned order stating that no counter was filed by them. She filed the certified copy of the counter filed by them before the trial Court in this CRP.

5.1. She further submitted that the CMA was preferred by the petitioners – defendants aggrieved by the order in I.A No.02 of 2021 and the same was pending before the Principal District Judge at Khammam and reported that no order was passed in the CMA till date.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no interim order was passed in this CRP and the CMA was also not disposed of on merits by the learned Principal District Judge at Khammam, it is considered fit to direct the Principal District Judge at Khammam to dispose of the matter at the earliest. It is considered not fit to disturb the existing protection granted to the respondents – plaintiffs. The petitioners are directed to maintain the orders granted by the trial Court and not to disturb the easementary rights of the respondents – plaintiffs over the suit schedule property until orders are passed by the Principal District Judge at Khammam.

7. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J

Date: 16th April, 2025

dsv.

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