The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.2472 of 2013
Dated 24.07.2014
Between:
P.Radha Krishna Reddy …Petitioner And Karanam Vasudeva Rao …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.L.V.Ramana Rao Counsel for the respondent: M/s.Avinash Desai The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 10-09-2012, in CMA.No.117 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar Hyderabad, whereby he has confirmed Order, dated 08-07-
2011, in IA.No.293 of 2011 in OS.No.594 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
By the above-mentioned Order, in IA.No.293 of 2011, the trial Court has granted temporary injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the respondent/plaintiff’s purported possession of the suit schedule property. The said Order was confirmed in CMA.No.117 of 2011 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Purportedly, aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner/defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition.
At the hearing, Mr.L.V.Ramana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, fairly stated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the suit schedule property and that the order of injunction does not affect his interests. He has, however, stated that his client has filed the Civil Revision Petition as certain facts have been wrongly mentioned by the Courts below.
In my opinion, so long as the order of injunction does not affect the interests of the petitioner, he cannot be treated as an aggrieved party merely because certain facts have not been correctly stated. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to entertain this Civil Revision Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.3250 of 2013, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 24th July, 2014 LUR