THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 3694 OF 2014 Date of Judgment: 27.10.2014 Between:
Kumbhari Srinivasa Prasad …Petitioner And Nallacheruvu Vijaya Bharathi and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 3694 OF 2014 ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner herein who is the first defendant in O.S.No. 166 of 2011 on the file of the II-Addl. District Judge (FTC), Ongole filed I.A.No. 212 of 2014 for review of order dated 9.6.2014 in I.A.No. 1180 of 2012. It appears from the record that I.A.No. 1180 of 2012 was filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property pending the suit for partition and it was allowed by the trial Court under its order dated 9.6.2014, however in para-3 of the said order it is recorded that the respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte, though the respondent No.1 appeared and contested the case. Under the impugned order in the review application, the trial Court accepted that there might be a mistake and the same will be corrected by recording that the first defendant was heard by deleting the exparte order against him. However, the further request of the petitioner to review the order is that the suit schedule property was already alienated by all the parties to defendant No.6 and it was brought to the notice of the trial Court by the first defendant while considering and disposing of the review application. In my view, the impugned order does not require any revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the trial Court has merely granted injunction restraining alienation pending the partition suit and if any alienation was already effected prior to passing of the said order of injunction, the said aspect can be gone into by the trial Court while deciding the suit itself, as the order of injunction being effective from the date when it was passed. I do not see any reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order.
Hence the revision petition is dismissed along with miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 27.10.2014 KR