VALLURU HEMALATHA Vs. SETTIPALLI PANDURANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issues raised in these two appeals are inter-related, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 in these two appeals who is the father of the second respondent has instituted the suit, O. S. No. 295 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, vijayawada for a declaration that the registered sale deed executed by himself and his son ( 2nd respondent herein) on 10/7/2000 in favour of the appellant in these appeals to sell the suit property bearing No. 48-9-5, Vishnunagar, Gundala village of Vijayawada, is void and vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and also for a consequential injunction restraining the third respondent herein from approving the lay out plan submitted by the appellant. Along with the suit, the first respondent has also filed two interlocutory applications under Order 39, rules 1,2,7 and Sec. 94 and 151 of cpc, one in I. A. No. 704 of 2000 seeking to restrain the respondent/defendants 1 to 5 therein from altering the physical features of the plaint schedule property, and the other in I. A. No. 705 of 2000 seeking to restrain the 6th respondent therein- Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali urban Development Authority, vijayawada represented by its Vice- Chairman, Vijayawada from approving any layout plan which includes the plaint schedule property. When the two I. As. came up for consideration before the lower Court on 24/7/2000, the lower court made the following order, viz;"heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the documents filed with plaint and with memo. Issue urgent notices to the respondents and in the meanwhile, status-quo to be maintained by the respondents. Post on 8/8/2000. "

(3.) Aggrived by the above order made by the Court below, the appellant who is the second defendant in the suit O. S. No. 295 of 2000 and who purchased the suit schedule property has approached this court by filing these two appeals.