PENCHALAPATI ANAKAMPALLI HANUMANTHA REDDY Vs. P SANJEEVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in the main appeal filed ASMP No. 424/ 2006 to recall the order passed in AS no. 2594/2003 and ASMP No. 2243 to 2246/ 2005, CMP No. 22203/2003 and ASMP nos. 548/2005 to 550/2005 dated 8. 11. 2005. Later, the respondents file ASMP No. 218/ 2007 to convert the recall petition in ASMP no. 424/2006 into a review petition as per the ratio laid down by this Court in Anita v. R. Rambilas, 2002 (5) ALD 502 (DB) = air 2003 AP 32. Whereas appellants in the main appeal filed ASMP No. 1000/2006 under Section 148 read with 151 CPC for enlarging the time to comply with the terms of the compromise decree passed in asmp No. 2243/2005 in AS No. 2594/2003 dated 8. 11. 2005.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell giving rise to all these petitions are as under : the appellants who are defendants in os No. 7/2000 on the file of Senior Civil judge, Gooty filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed dated 23. 6. 2003 whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title over items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties; for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs half share in items 3 and 4 of plaint schedule property, by allotting preferably southern half of items 3 and 4 to the plaintiffs was decreed declaring that they are owners of items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties and granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment over items Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties, and in the alternative the plaintiffs are entitled for possession with regard to item Nos. l and 2, and further they are entitled for partition and separate possession of their share with regard to items 3 and 4 of the plaint schedule property by allotting southern half share of items 3 and 4 of them.

(3.) PENDING appeal, the appellants filed asmp No. 2243/2005 under Order 23 rule 1 CPC to dispose of appeal in terms of compromise memo. Respondents 7, 6 and 5 filed ASMP No. 2244, 2245 and 2246 of 2005 respectively to permit P. Devender reddy to admit their signature i. e. , sarojamma-R. 7, Anantharathnamma-R. 6 and Penchalapati Ankampalli Lingamm-R. 5 in the compromise and to represent on their behalf to admit the compromise entered by them in ASMP No. 2243/2005. Whereas cmp No. 22203/2003 was filed to suspend the judgment and decree dated 23. 6. 2003 passed in O. S. No. 7/2000. ASMP No. 548/ 2005 was filed by the respondents to direct the lower Court to ascertain the mesne profits in respect of items 3 and 4 of the plaint suit property. The respondents filed asmp No. 549/2005 seeking permission to withdraw an amount of Rs. 63,000/- and rs. 13,000/- with interest. The respondents also filed ASMP No. 550/2005 to vacate the interim stay granted in CMP No. 22203/2003. The main appeal as well as the above asmps were taken up together and accordingly ASMP No. 2243/2005 is allowed and the appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise memo filed in ASMP no. 2243/2005 modifying the decree passed in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties, and the pending applications in cmp No. 22203/2003 and ASMP Nos. 548 to 550 of 2005 were also disposed of in terms of the compromise memo.