//
you're reading...
legal issues

Interim Order: Partition suit – Preliminary decree – Appeal before High Court – Interim order maintaining status quo – Modified by High Court permitting respondent to raise construction of second floor =HELD: Merely because there was some purported inconvenience indicated by respondent, that could not have been a ground to permit construction of second floor – Order of High Court set aside – Parties to maintain status quo till disposal of matter by High Court. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1143-1144/09 Form the Judgement & Order dated 20.10.08 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Sccundcrabad (A.P.), in CCCA MP No.111 of 2007 and CCCA MP. 671 of 2006. Dharam Bir Raj Vohra and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellants.

2009 (3 ) SCR 336
Hight court of the state of Andhra pradesh loc...

Image via Wikipedia



 PEDDI ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
 v.
 PEDDI SUDARSHAN RAO
 (Civil Appeal Nos. 1143-44 of 2009)
 FEBRUARY 20, 2009
 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

 DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge

of the Andhra Pradesh High Court permitting construction of the second floor, by

modification of the interim order dated 3.11.2006, by which status quo was

directed to be maintained. The High Court felt that there was no material to show

that the building will not withstand the second floor and that there was

inconvenience on the part of the applicant before the High Court to

accommodate his sons. The High Court in the aforesaid premises modified the

interim order dated 3.11.2006 and permitted construction of the second floor.

 3. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the correctness of the

impugned order. There was no material before the High Court to show that any

plan had been submitted or there was any sanction to construct the second floor.

Specific stand was taken that the building would not withstand raising of the

second floor. The High Court felt that it was for the appellant before the High

Court to show that the building withstand the second floor. No material was

placed by the applicant before the High Court to show that either there was any
sanction for construction of the second floor or that the factual situation was that

construction of the second floor would not cause damage to the building. Merely

because there was some purported inconvenience indicated by the applicant that

could not have been ground to permit construction of the second floor.

 4. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court

dated 20.10.2008 and direct that status quo as was earlier directed by the order

dated 3.11.2006 shall continue to be operative till disposal of the matter by the

High Court. 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,199 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: