ANIREDDY AMRUTHA Vs. A. VASUDHA REDDY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal is preferred questioning order dated 09.12.2015 in I.A. No.847 of 2015 in O.S. No. 37 of 2015 on the file of VII-Additional District Judge at Miryalguda, Nalgonda District.

(2.) The above referred suit is filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating or conveying or delivering possession or otherwise creating rights in favour of third parties including defendant No.2 pursuant to the public notice dated 07.10.2015 published in 'Eenadu' Telugu daily newspaper any part of suit schedule property without first offering the same for purchase by the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 at market rate, and contrary to the terms, and in excess of the property allotted to defendant No.1 in the award dated 18.06.2009 in Lok Adalat Case No. 497 of 2009 in O.S. No.20 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nalgonda and without demarcation of the share of plaintiffs, defendant No. 3 and defendant No.1 as also common amenities in the suit schedule property. In that suit, plaintiffs filed this I.A. seeking temporary injunction restraining respondent No.1, her men, agents and others from alienating, conveying or delivering possession of petition schedule property either in part or in whole to third parties or to respondent No.2 pending disposal of main suit. The trial Court on a consideration of material produced by both parties allowed the application partly and directed both parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit and directed both parties to cooperate for disposal of the suit as expeditiously as possible. When this matter has come up before me on 21.04.2016, considering the submissions of both parties, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct survey with the help of Mandal Surveyor/qualified Surveyor to localise and identify 'A', 'B' and 'F' schedule property of the Lok Adalat award and in pursuance of warrant issued to Advocate Commissioner he executed the warrant and filed report along with plan and surveyor's report.

(3.) Now the contention of advocate for plaintiffs i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein that the Advocate Commissioner has not demarcated the plaint schedule properties and objections were already filed to the Commissioner's report and that advocate Commissioner has not completed the work as per work memo given by plaintiffs.