HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CMA.No.603 of 2014 Date:03.07.2014 Between:
Peddibhotla Subrahmaya Vara Prasad, S/o Subrahmaya Sastry And:
Peddibhotla Subrahmanya Sastry, S/o Late Lakshmi Narayana ……Appellant ..…Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy Counsel for the respondent: ---
The Court made the following:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CMA.No.603 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of order, dated 29.04.2014, in I.A.No.275 of 2014 in O.S.No.136 of 2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada.
I have heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The appellant filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration that the cancellation deed, dated 16.03.2013, is void, inoperative and not binding on him and for consequential reliefs of possession, prohibitory injunction and other allied reliefs in respect of the suit schedule property. The appellant also filed I.A.No.1318 of 2013 in the said suit for prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent and his agents from executing any further registered or unregistered agreements or conveyances in respect of the suit schedule property and not to damage and not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
In the said Interlocutory Application, the respondent has filed an Undertaking Affidavit, dated 19.07.2013, “not to execute any sale deeds with respect to the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit and not to cause damage to the plaint schedule property”. Subsequently, the appellant filed I.A.No.275 of 2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for an order to attach the suit schedule property for the alleged disobedience of the undertaking by the respondent. The appellant alleged that contrary to the said undertaking by him, the respondent has let out the suit schedule property to a third party and that therefore, he has violated the undertaking. The lower Court, on consideration of the respective pleadings, dismissed the said I.A.
A perusal of the undertaking given by the respondent shows that he has undertaken not to execute the sale deeds and not to cause damage to the suit schedule property.
In my opinion, by letting out the suit schedule property to a third party, the respondent has not violated the undertaking given by him.
In this view of the matter, the lower Court is justified in dismissing the I.A. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, CMAMP.No.890 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
03rd July, 2014 DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY