ARUNA M DIXIT Vs. ANANDI BAI V DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court admitted the civil revision petition on 13. 6. 2008 and granted interim injunction in CMP No. 2821/2008. The 5th respondent - NCL Homes rep. by its M. D. filed CRP MP No. 3779/2008 praying for vacation of the interim injunction granted by this Court in CMP No. 2821/ 2008 in CRP No. 2149/2008.

(2.) IT is stated that the other respondents also had been served and none represents the other respondents. At the request of the Counsel on record, the civil revision petition itself is being disposed of finally, though the matter is appearing under the caption of interlocutory.

(3.) SRI B. Vijaysen Reddy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners would submit that may be that the Developer may not be a sharer, but however, since in a partition action, such party also would be a necessary party for the reason that the Developer would get some limited interest in the immovable property by virtue of the agreement entered into between the said Developer and certain of the sharers. The learned Counsel also would maintain that under the guise of the Development agreement, the 5th respondent is proceeding with the construction of the building in undue haste changing the very nature of the property and in view of the same, instead of allowing the application, the learned II-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district totally erred in dismissing the application.