PAIDIMARRI RAMA RAO Vs. IMMADI NAGA PRASANNA LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil miscellaneous appeals are filed as against a common order made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam in IA Nos.1652 of 2002 and 1753 of 2002 in OS No.198 of 2002, dated 6-1-2003.

(2.) The appellant in both the appeals, the plaintiff in the above suit filed IA No.1652 of 2002 as against the respondent-defendant praying for temporary injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. Likewise, the respondent herein, the defendant in the suit, filed an application IA No.1753 of 2002 praying for temporary injunction against the plaintiff from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The learned Judge heard both the applications and in view of the commonality involved, disposed of both the applications by a common order dismissing the application IA No.1652 of 2002 and allowing the application IA No.1753 of 2002, however with a further direction to the respondent- defendant to furnish third party security for Rs. 1,00,000/- on or before 24-1-2003 and to receive the rents from the tenant- K. Veeriah and if the defendant failed to furnish third party security on or before 24-1-2003, the tenant is directed to deposit the rent into Court till the defendant furnished third party security. It is stated that the third party security as directed by the Court had been furnished by the respondent herein, the petitioner in IA No.1753 of 2002, defendant in the said suit. It is needless to say that in pursuance of the direction referred to supra, made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, at present the respondent-petitioner in IA No.1753 of 2002, the defendant, has been collecting the rents.

(3.) Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel representing the appellant in both these appeals would submit that the parties are brother and sister and the brother filed the suit for perpetual injunction and prayed for temporary injunction in IA No.1652 of 2002 in OS No.198 of 2002. The Counsel also would submit that the defendant filed an application IA No.1753 of 2002 in the said suit praying for a positive relief of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with her possession. The Counsel would maintain that this application cannot be maintained in the light of the view expressed by this Court in the judgment reported in Javvaji Sambamurthy v. Cheukumalli Srinivasa Rao, 1987 (2) ALT 630 = 1987 (2) APLJ 97. The learned Counsel also would contend that though several documents were relied upon by the parties, the learned Judge except referring to a few documents here and there, had not appreciated the documentary evidence placed before the Court in proper perspective and the documents placed before the Court also had not been marked for the purpose of proper appreciation and hence serious prejudice had been caused to the appellant by virtue of the said order made by the learned Judge.