P MURALI Vs. K T NARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court seeking injunctory reliefs restraining thp defendants fiy.ro using the 'B' schedule property namely as 25 feet road which provided access to the suit schedule 'A' property from the main road. THE defendants center that 20 guntas of land in the vicinity of the suit schedule property including 'IV' schedule property was sold to one Nirmala and that she had put up a compound wall over the 20 guntas of land including 'B' schedule property, his was also stated to have been admitted by the plaintiff during the course of cross-examination. THErefor, the Court has concluded that since Nirmala was not made a party to the suit and the she has admitted that she put up a compound wall under the 20 guntas of land including the 'B' schedule property, that 'B' schedule property being defined as a read, ceased to exist and therefore there was no case made out.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant had filed an application along with the present appeal seeking to implead one Nirmala. that application has been summarily allowed by this Court in the first instance and the causetitle has been amended. THE Learned Counsel who appearance for the said Nirmala, would state that that the applications has been allowed without notice in the first instance. THErefore, bewould objection to the Respondent No 4 having been implead in the appeal though shin the present was not a party to the suit in the first instance, it is pointed out that the faile to implead the the first. instant according to the learned counsel for the appellant, was due to inadertence on the part of the counsel for Court in doing so though he was instructed to iuplead Nirmala. This according to the learned Counsel can hardly be a reason to permit the appellant to implead Nirmala and to seek to make out a case against her though there were no pleadings or evidence in support of any such contentions that have been taken up in the above appeal.