HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.M.A.No.45 of 2014 Date : 16-4-2014 Between :
Kalluri Manjula ..
Appellant Mohd. Parveen Sulthana and another ..
Respondents Counsel for appellant : Sri Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy Counsel for respondents : Sri C.V.L.N. Murthy The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of order dated 20-3-2013 in A.S.No.30/2009 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal, whereby he has set-aside Judgment and decree dated 6-2-2009 in O.S.No.357/2007 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh disposal of the suit and in the process reframed the issues.
A perusal of the Judgment of the trial Court would show that it has framed two issues, which are as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and for injunction as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
The lower appellate Court has found fault with the approach of the trial Court in not framing proper issues in the light of the pleadings of the parties. On the rival pleas, the lower appellate Court has identified the following issues :
1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of house plot bearing No.2-9-532 and whether the same is covered by Survey.No.175/B (old) new Survey.Nos.348, 175/E, 175/F and 175/F of Waddepally?
2. Whether the Sy.No.89 (new) is part and parcel of old Sy.No.175 of Waddepally village?
3. Whether the plaintiff is possessor of the suit property and whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as owner and possessor of the suit property as against the defendants?
5. Whether the suit property is part and parcel of Sy.No.175/B (old) corresponding new Sy.Nos.348, 175/E, 175/F and 175/G of Waddepally and whether Sy.No.89 (new) was part of old Sy.No.175?
6. To what relief?
The lower appellate Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit afresh on the above issues.
In my opinion, the lower appellate Court has set right the erroneous approach of the trial Court by framing appropriate issues. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the order of the lower appellate Court for interference in this appeal.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, CMAMP Nos.91 and 494 of 2014 are disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 16-4-2014 AM