THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2762 of 2014 Between: Giri Namala And Dated 03rd September, 2014 …Petitioner Sri S.Nagaraju and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri R.Dheeraj Singh Counsel for the respondents: ----
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 02.06.2014, in C.M.A.No.35 of 2011, on the file of the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the order, dated 18.01.2011, in I.A.No.1409 of 2009 in O.S.No.2517 of 2009, on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
I have heard Sri R.Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 8 from interfering with their possession of the suit schedule properties, which are house plots. In the said suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed I.A.No.1409 of 2009 for temporary injunction. By order, dated 18.01.2011, the trial Court granted temporary injunction. The said order was confirmed in C.M.A.No.35 of 2011 by order, dated 22.03.2013, by the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3703 of 2013. By order, dated 13.09.2013, this Court has allowed the said CRP and remanded the case to the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal of the CMA. After remand, the lower appellate Court has dismissed the CMA by the order under revision.
Sri R.Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the lower appellate Court has failed to consider the objection of the petitioner that the photo copies of the purported layout sanction and the construction permission produced by respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs cannot be relied upon, was not considered in proper perspective, despite the specific observations made by this Court in C.R.P.No.3703 of 2013.
A perusal of the order of the lower appellate Court undoubtedly shows that the direction given by this Court to consider the objection of the petitioner with respect to the photocopies of the above-mentioned two documents was not properly followed.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that by detailed reasons given by both the Courts below, the pleas of the petitioner on all the aspects have been rejected. The suit is of the year 2009, which is ripe for disposal. Indeed, the lower appellate Court while dismissing the CMA directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, if necessary by conducting trial on a day-to-day basis.
In view of this fact, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Courts below at this stage. Instead, interests of justice would be met if the trial Court disposes of the suit expeditiously without being influenced by any of the findings rendered by itself and also the lower appellate Court in all the three orders passed by them. It is further made clear that dismissal of this CRP shall not be understood as this Court affirming the findings of the Courts below on merits. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit strictly based on the evidence available on record ignoring the orders passed in the IA and CMAs, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Subject to be above observations, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3814 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd September, 2014
VGB