ADITYA MOTORS Vs. DOGIPARTHI VENKATA SATISH AND ORS.
LAWS(APH)-2019-6-28
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on June 12,2019

Aditya Motors Appellant
VERSUS
Dogiparthi Venkata Satish And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BALDEV SINGH V. MANOHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER KANTA BANSAL V. RAJINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
J. SAMUEL V. GATTU MAHESH [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL REHMAN V. MOHD. RULDU [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN NATH VS. CHANDER BHAN [REFERRED TO]
K RAHEJA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED VS. ALLIANCE MINISTRIES [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR GURAWARA VS. S K SARWAGI AND CO PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR FINANCE INVESTMENTS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VIDYABAI VS. PADMALATHA [REFERRED TO]
REVAJEETU BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. NARAYANASWAMY AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. B RAMAGOUD [REFERRED TO]
VEMPALLI SRINIVASULA REDDY VS. V M RAMAKRISHNA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
CHUNCHU LAXMINARAYANA VS. P ANDEMMA [REFERRED TO]
M/S. BHAGWATI VANASPATI TRADERS VS. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, MEERUT [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M. Seetharama Murthi,J. - (1.)These civil revision petitions arise out of five orders separately made, on 28-3-2018, by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur in I.A. Nos. 237, 240, 241, 239, 238 of 2018 in O.S. No. 118 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of pleadings. By the said orders, all the said petitions are allowed. In view of the commonality and identity of subject matter of all the interlocutory applications, which are allowed, these CRPs are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.)I have heard the submissions of Sri. S.S. Prasad, learned senior counsel, representing Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner - unsuccessful 1 respondent - 1 defendant ['1 defendant', for brevity] and of Smt. V. Dyumani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 - plaintiffs ['plaintiffs', for brevity]. I have perused the material record.
(3.)To begin with, it is to be noted that the plaintiffs instituted the suit against the 1 defendant and three others for eviction from the plaint schedule premises and recovery of vacant possession of the same, recovery of money towards use and occupation and other reliefs. The 1 defendant is also resisting the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed the above said Interlocutory Applications in the suit and also in the pending Interlocutory Applications in the suit. Top
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.