SAILA MARY GRACE Vs. PRODDUTURI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2013 passed in I.A.No.607 of 2012 in O.S.No.129 of 2005 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada wherein the petition filed by the respondent /plaintiff under Sections 144 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.') with a prayer for restoration of his possession over the plaint schedule property was allowed.

(2.) The facts of the case in nutshell are that the respondent herein who is plaintiff in the suit has filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property and for consequential reliefs. Later the suit was decreed and the respondent/plaintiff has also filed E.P.No.153 of 2007 for delivery of the property and the same was delivered to him on 25.06.2009. Subsequently the respondent/plaintiff has approached the Court below by filing a petition under Sections 144 and 151 of C.P.C. for restoration of his possession over the plaint schedule property alleging that the petitioner herein who is defendant No.1 in the suit had highhandedly dispossessed the respondent/plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. The respondent/plaintiff also alleged that inspite of his best efforts he could not secure his possession.

(3.) The petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed counter in the said interlocutory application specifically stating that the plaint schedule property and E.P. schedule property are not one and the same. The respondent/plaintiff who has obtained decree tried to dispossess the petitioner/defendant No.1 from the other properties in which she is in possession and she never dispossessed the respondent/plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. As such she sought for dismissal of the suit.