Kola Yakalaxmi v. Vallapu Santhamma And 9 Others
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD i FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P,MADHAVI DEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2398 OF 2022 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order aggrieved /against the Docket Order dated.2'1.06.2022 passed in 1.A.573 of 2022 in OS 188 of 2022 on the file of the Court of file of the Junior Civil Judge-CumJudicial Magistrate of First Class, at Thorrur. Between:
Kola Yakalaxmi, Wo. Ramulu, age. 35 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o Mechra.ipally Village, Nellikudur Mandal, Mahabububad District.
...Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
1. Vallapu Santhamma, Wo. late Vallapu Venkataiah@ Venakanna, a years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Matedu Village, Thorrur Mandal, Maha district e.50 ubabad s b
2. Vallapu Srikanth, S/o. late Venkataiah,age. 25 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.Matedu Village, Thorrur Mandal, Mahabubabad District
3. Vallapu Rajamma, W/o. Mallaiah,age. 45 years Occ. housewife, R/o. Matedu Village,Thorrur Mandal, Mahabubabad District
4. Gottigorla Swaroopa, Wo. Sriny,age. 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Matedu Village, Thorrur Mandal, Mahabubabad Dlstrict
5. Bandi Aruna, Wo. Yadagiri, age.42 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Rayaparthy Village, Thorrur Mandal, Mahabubabad District
6. Kola Venkanna, S/o. Mallaiah,age. 55 years, Rio. Mechrajpally Village, Nellikudur Mandal, Mahabubabad district
7. Gundeboina Mounika, Wo. Mahendar, age. 25 years, Occ.house wife , R/o.Ammasom Paravathagiri Mandal, Warangal District.
8. Kola Revath, D/o. Venkanna, age.20 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Mecharajpally Village, Nellikudur Mandal, Mahabubabad District
9. The Tashildar, Thorrur Mandal, Mahabubabad District. ,,:
10.The Government of Telanqana, through District Collector Mahabubabad District. ( R I and 1O are n-ot necessaiy parties to this CRp) ... Res pondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Read with Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim injunction an favour of this petitioner by restraining respondents/ defendants not to alienating the suit schedule property till the disposal of main suit, in the interest of Justice. SCHEDULE PROPERTY Item No.1 AII that in the Sy.no 164 (old) now Sy. No146/A5i.l(new) admeasuring about Ac.3-32 gts at Bonthupally village, Thonur mandal, Mahabubbabad District. bounded by.
East . land of Vallapu Srinu West . pathway North. land of Vallapu Rajamma ( Def.No.3) South. land of Vallapu Rajamma ( Def.No.3) Item llo.2 All that in the Sy.no. 164 (otd) now Sy.No146/A4l1 (new) admeasuring about Ac.3-32 gts at Bonthupalry vilrage,Thorrur mandal,Mahabubbabad District. bounded by.
i , East. land of Naini Ashok Reddy Mango garden 'y'{est . pathway l,,lorth. land of Naini Ashok Reddy Mango garden
South. land of Vallapu Shanthamma ( Def No l ) Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s GUNDLAPALLI V S S S SRUTHI Counsel for the Respondent No.3: M/s A' RAGHURAMA AURAVA The Court made the following: ORDER J
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI CIVIL REVISIO N PETITI ON No .239E of 2022 ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking a direction to the lower court to consider and pass orders in I'A'No'573 of 2022 of O.S.No.18B of 2O22.,daled2l'06'2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Thorrur'
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the Suit in O'S'No'188 of 2022 which is filed for partition of joint family properties and separate possession and permanent injunction' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has Iiled l'A'No'573 of 2022 for an interim direction not to alienate the property pending disposal of the Suit. The grievance of the petitioner/ plaintiff is that instead of grantlng the interim direction' only an urgent notice has been directed and the petitioner apprehends if the interim direction is not granted immediately, the respondents may transfer the suit schedule \ properties and third parties may come into picture pending disposasl of the Suit.
t
3. The notices sent to the respondent have been served and the respondent No.3 is also represented by the counsel and only with
PMD,J C.R.P.No.239E of 2022 regard to one respondent i.e., respondent No.2, there 15 II endorsement that 'he has moved from the said address,.
4. However, since the prayer of the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is only to direct the lower court to pass order in LA.No.573 of 2022 expeditiously ald since the urgent notices have already been issued by the lower court, this Court deems it fit and proper to pass am order directing the lou,er court to consider and pass orders in I.A.No.573 of 2022 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Revision petition, shal1 stard closed.
SD/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTFAR i/TRUE COPY// ,(/ / SECTION OFFICER To, .rl a The Junior Civil J udge-Cum-J udicial Magistrate of First Class, at Thorrur. One CC to M/s GUNDLAPALLI V S S S SRUTHI, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to M/s A. RAGHURAMA AURAVA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies MIUK "i-
HIGH COURT PMD, J DAf ED:3011212022 y'L"r"
o T :) ,I $8 $N i (,,, '\:..?
\
ORDER
CRP.No.2398 of 2022 ;;,/ DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION t 4>,