ANANTHULA CHANDRAKALA Vs. KARIM GULAM HUSSAIN LALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 17-11-2005 and granted an order of interim suspension. Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent had entered appearance.

(2.) The petitioner aggrieved by an order made in C.M.A.No.65/2004 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Warangal, confirming the order made in IA. No.501/2003 in O.S.No.269/2003 on the file of n Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal had preferred the present civil revision petition.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs.2,78,022/- with other ancillary reliefs praying for passing of a preliminary decree in relation to the mortgaged property shown in the plaint schedule. The respondent herein as plaintiff, moved two applications i.e., I.A.No.500/2005 and I.A.No.501/2005 in the aforesaid suit praying for temporary injunction restraining the revision petitioner/ respondent/defendant from causing any damage to the suit property and from removing any structure, demolition and changing the physical features of the property till the disposal of the suit and also yet another relief under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience) to safeguard his rights for realisation of the decretal amount in the event of a decree being passed with a further request directing the revision petitioner/defendant to furnish security. The Court of first instance having marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 and on appreciation of the facts and circumstances arrived at the conclusion that both the reliefs as prayed for to be granted. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the said applications, defendant in the suit, preferred C.M.A. Nos.64 and 65 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Warangal and the learned Judge allowed C.M.A.No.64/ 2004 setting aside the order made in I.A.No.500/2003, thus disallowing the temporary injunction granted by the Court of first instance, but however dismissed C.M.A.No.65/2004 wherein attachment before judgment of the plaint schedule house had been ordered inasmuch as security had not been furnished. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.