ANANDA REDDY Vs. RADHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(2.) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed against the order dtd. 25/7/2013 passed on I.A.No.5 filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC in O.S.No.7674/2001 ordering detention of defendant No.2/appellant herein for a period of one month for violation of the interim order.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/9th share in the suit schedule properties along with an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties, pending disposal of the suit and the Trial Court by its order dtd. 9/1/2002 passed an order that defendant Nos.1 to 3 shall not alienate the suit schedule properties till their filing of objections to I.A.No.1. The plaintiff No.2 filed an affidavit before the Trial Court that this order was violated by defendant No.2 by executing the sale deed on 10/10/2002 in favour of one B.K.Srinath and also contended that two more sale deeds are executed on 3/6/2004 and defendant No.2 has deliberately disobeyed the order dtd. 9/1/2002 and hence he may be ordered to be detained in civil prison. The defendant No.2/appellant herein filed the objection statement on 2/8/2003 contending that he has sold site No.12, in view of the partition dtd. 30/6/2000 and he has not violated the order. The Trial Court posted the matter for enquiry on I.A.No.5 and plaintiff No.2 tendered her affidavit evidence in support of I.A.No.5 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to 3 sale deeds and the appellant herein did not lead any evidence on I.A.No.5. The Trial Court taking note of the material on record comes to the conclusion that the appellant herein violated the order and ordered to detain him for a period of one month.