PODUGU MADUSUDHAN Vs. KONDURI KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S. No.12 of 2000, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He also filed I.A.Nos.l 17 and 3246 of 2000, for grant of temporary injunction, against two sets of respondents. Two more applications, being I.A.Nos.368 of 2000 and 301 of 2001, are filed, for the relief of restitution of the suit schedule property to its original position. The enquiry into all the four applications is said to be still pending.

(2.) In respect of a portion of the suit schedule property, the petitioner, who is the Defendant No.3 in the suit, obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat, the 2nd respondent herein (Defendant No.4 in the suit), to construct a building. The 1st respondent filed LA. No.196 of 2004, with a prayer to stay the proceedings, in which the permission was accorded to the petitioner, by the 2nd respondent. The application was filed by invoking Section 151 CPC, and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the Act'). Petitioner resisted the application, both on questions of fact and law. Through its order dated 8-9-2004, the Trial Court allowed the LA. Hence, this CRP.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, submits that LA. No.196 of 2004 was not maintainable, particularly, when applications filed by the 1st respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, are pending. He contends that Section 52 of the Act is a substantive provision, and the principle laid down in it can operate only after disposal of the suit, and it cannot be invoked in an interlocutory application.