Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Ramana Kumari vs M Narasimha Rao on 12 June, 2019
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN 'PRESENT: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 619 OF 2019 Petition under Section o 15 af CPC, aggrieved by the decree and Judgement in O.S.No.208 of 2015 dated 30-01-2079 on the file of the V Addl. District Judge, Raraahondravararn East Godavari District. Between: Viaddimsetty Ramana Kumari, W, fo, Maddimsetty Vasudeva Nrusimha Satvanarayana, Aged about 40 Years, 58-15-12/1, Sanjeev Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District _.Petitioners/Appellani/Defendant No.1 AND 1. Maddimseity Narasimha Rao, S/o. Salyanarayana, Aged about 70 Years, Occ: Rid. Employee, HONow16-475/2/4, PVN Colony, Malkajgini, Hyderabad _ Respondent/Respondent No. 1/Plainttl 2. Vadapalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o, Subba Rao A ned about 45 years, Occ: Cultivation, O.No.8-S7/0 3, Vadapailivar Street, Akiveedu, Wrast Godavar District mo Vadapalll Brahmeaji, S/o. Not known, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Culfivation, D.No.8-97/5, Vadapallivan Street, Akiveedu, Wiest Godavari District (Respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein is performa and not necessary parties). vw. Respondents/Defendants. [A NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying tht in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to gtay of all further proceedings including execution of decree in pursuant to the Judgment and Decree in O.5.No0.208 of 2015 dated 30-01-2019 on the file of the Court of the V Addi. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit fled in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. KIVS.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner, and Sn K. Chidambaram, Advocate for the Respondent. The Court made the following ORDER: HON'BLE SREJUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAD CRP. No.619 OF 2019 Challenge in this CRP at the mstance of defendant Na.] is to the judgment dated 30.01.2019 in O.S.No.208 of 2015 passed by learned Vo Additional District fudge, Rajamahendravaram, whereby plaints suit was deereed and defendants | to 3 were directed to vacate the plant schedule property within one month from the date af Judgment and deliver vacant possession of the suit mraperty to the plant Par the sake of convenience, the parties fercin after will be referred la as they were arrayed before the lower court, 3, the factual matrix of the case is thus: (a) The plaintiffis the father-in-law of DL. D2 is the elder brother and D3 is the junior paternal uncle OF D1. PlaintifMs case is that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as he got the sated property from his sen Maddimsetti Vasudeva Nrusimha Satyanarayana, under registered gift deeds dated 19.10.2010 and i204. 2012. Ever since, the plaintiff and his wife have been residing ma portion of the plaint schedule property by fetting out half of the first flaar portion of the building. tis the case of the plaintiff that after the marriage between [91 and second son of plaintiff, they lived ab various places like Bangalore, Gujarat, New Delhi, Oatar and Abu hab Subsequently, Dt alone with her two children lived with the 5 LIDPR J * CRP Na old af 3010 plaintiit for about two years and thereafler, went away to her parents house in the month of June, 2012 and due to family disputes, she filed CU NodS3 of 2072 on the file of I Additional fudicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, under Section 498A IPC against plaintiff. his wife and three sons. The trial court convicted them and on appeal, the HE Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, acquitted them in Criminal Appeal No.2270 of 2014. 'Vhe husband of DI filed a Guardian O.P. on the file of Principal District Court, Eburu, for custody of the children, which was allowed. ffe also fled a Divorce OP NoTS9 of 2015 on the file of Family Court, Rajahmundry, seeking divorce against DI. The plaintiff and his wife are nat cancerred with the matrimonial disputes between DE and her husband. 'The husband of OL is working at Abu Dhabi and D1 has been residing in her parental house at Akiveedu. (bj Further case of plainuff is that, due to dl-advise of D2 and 193, faking advantage of the old age and sickness of plaintiff and his wife, all the defendants highhandedly trespassed into the suit property on PO.OS.2075 between 06.30 and U7.00 p.m. and dispossessed the plate? and his wife and when questioned, they threatened to kill them. "Phe neighbours melding Rayudu Pullayya and Kati Suryavathi tried te mtervene, but the defendants did not heed them. The plaintiff gave a complaint to Cul. of Police, HE Town Police Station, Rayabmundrm. A case in Crime No.196 ef 2O1S was registered for the offences under Sections 448 and 506 IPC against the UEP RA CRP Ned Sof 219 io defendants. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit under Section 6 of specific Relief Act for recovery of possession. (¢) P1 filed written statement denying the plaint averments. She admitted the relationship between the parties. She denied the plaint averments that the defendants trespassed into the suit property and dispossessed the plain? on 10.08.2015. Her ease is that, she has been residing in the suit property as a shared houschold of her husband. I] and her husband used to reside in the plaint schedule property. Later, her husband and in-laws harassed D1 for additional dowry, as a result, she lodged a police report and they registered a ease against her husband and ia-laws under Section 498A IPC. The trial court convicted the accused whereas the lawer appellate court acquitted them, against which, an appeal is pending before the High Court, The husband of TH) also fled a Chuardian O.P. and Divarce O.P. against DI and the same ae pending. Her further case is that pending tral of criminal case, the husband of defendant and his parents colluded together and in order to defeat her right in the shared household, they have created the att deeds. In fact there was no acceptance of the gift deeds and possession was never handed over to the plainti? as per the alleged gift deeds. ED] contended that the plamtiff was never in possession of the plaint schedule property. The gilt transactions are sham and collusive, D1, thus, claimed right of possession and occupation in the plaint schedule property as her miatnmomal home. She, thus. pruyed to dismiss the suit. 4 PPPRI CRP No Gio af 201 During trial, following issues were framed: (} Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief oF vacant possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants there fram' Oi) Yo what reliet? S. During trial, P.Ws.§ and 3 were examined and bxs.Al to AZ3 were marked on behalf of plainuffh On behalf of deiendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined but no documents were marked. The trial court having regard to the evidence on record Le. bxs.AS. AS. Ad, AG to AIS held that the plaintiff could establish his title to the suit property and the defence set up by the defendants is untenable. 'Phen, the trial court having regard to the oral evidence of P.Ws.t and 3 held Unu plaindiif and his wile were in possession of the suit property af (O.OS 20618. on whieh date the defendants disposed them. The irtal court then considered the contention of DT that che iS IM possession of the property by means of shared house hold and held that when suit property is the exclusive property of plamufl, she cannot clan passession as u shared hause hold by placing rchance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apes Court in Sa. Barra and Ors. vy. Faruna Batra'. "Vhe tial court ultimately decreed ihe suit and directed the defendants to eviet the suit property within ene month from the date of yudgment. Henee. the CORP. G. Licard learned counse! for pelitioner, Sri K.V.S.S Prabhakar ac and SH K Chidambaram, learned counsel fer respondent. YOO? ORE ALE 66 (S04 LLPRI - SRP Wo 619 of BOLO 7. (a) Learned counsel for petitioner carped the judgment of the trial court on twa main grounds, Firstly, he would argue, the trial court failed te appreciate the contention af the petitioner/Dl in right perspective. The contention of DI is thai the land covered by the sutt property was in fact purchased by the hasband of DY and he eonstructed house thereon with his own funds and therefore, the property belongs to him. Tlowever, due to the pendeney of matrimonial disputes between D1 and her husband, Jatier in collusion with his parents executed two nonimal and sham aift deeds In favour of plaintiff? obviously to extirpate the right of JF} and ber clifdren to reside in the sult property as a shared household. Therefore, the trial court ought not to have given credence to bins. A? and AB ent deceds to hold that the plaintiff is the owner of the sul property and ought to have dismissed the suit in limini. (6) Seeondly, learned counsel argued in vehemence that even if the sult property stands in the name of plamtift by virtue of sift deeds, however, he cannot treat the same as his exclusive property because he oabtamed the same through aif deeds from his son i.e.. husband of D1. Therefore, the property should be treated as a joimt family property of plaintiff ane his sons. In that view. D1 and her children will have right of residence as a shared houschold in the said property and they cannot be termed as trespassers under law. Pte further argued that as a matier of fact plauntiY and his wife never resided in the sun property and on the other band, Dt, her children and other G LDP RAJ ° CRE Noi of 2014 defendants have been residing therein. Therefore, the question of LD] dispossessing the plaintiff and his wile from the suit property does not arise. fe) Vhirdly, he would argue. even assuming that the plaintif was dispossessed from the suit property, be has to file a regular sult for declaration of his right, evietion of defendants and recovery of possession, but, he cannot file a summary suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act. 'To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on Motd. thrahin and others vo Smt. Manni @. Zainab Bee*. He, thus, prayed to allaw the CRP and set aside the judgment, Ss, fa) fn oppuenation, learned counsel! for respondent Sri RK. Chidambaram would argue that the suit property is the absolute property of the plainulY inasmuch as he purchased the vacant site eovered by EX.Al in the name of tis son and thereafter, obtained Joan From the bank and constructed the house. Since the praperty belongs to him. his son exeeuted bwe ili deeds in favour of plaintiff As such, the plaintiff is the full-lledged owner of the sult property, The plainti® and his wife have been continuously residing in the plant schedule property by paying municipal tax, electricity bills and water tax covered by Exs.A6 to AIS and A20 to A22. Therefore. he would arguc, i iS preposterous to contend that 1D1"s husband is stil the owner but not the plaindff He conversely argued that even aSsumMing. that His husband was the owner. by virtue of execution of gift deeds, a "OAT CEP ALP SHI HOPRY CRP Noe io of Topo ~ of the plaintiff became owner of suit property. Ef ft is the case of defendants that the gift deeds are sham and nominal documents. it js for them to file an independent suit te establish the said fret. (b) Nexthy, regarding the possession of the plaintiff, Jeamed counsel argued that apart from the house tax receipts. electricity bills and water fax receipts, the oral evidence of PWs.) and 3 would demonstratively show the khas possession of plaintiff in respect of suit property, Except intermittent stay, Df and her children never permanently resided in the suit house. On the other hand, when the relationship between Dt and her husband was cardial, she used to reside with him in different places like Bangalore, Gujarat, New Delhi, Qatar and Abu Dhabi. Therefore, the question oF D) residing in the suit property does not arise. Referring the cross-cxamination of DW, learned counsel would arvue that m her cross-examination she clearly admitted that she came lo the suit property on 1O.0S 20845 and alter she entered the bouse, plaintiff and his wife feft the house. He would, thus, emphasize that even according to her own admission, she entered the suit house only on 1 O.OS20TS. Pe argued, her further version that on seeing her entering the house the plamtiff and his wife went away from the house is a concoction. Plaintiff and her husband were ald and sickly people and except the suit heuse, there was no aboard for them to take shelter and in such circumstances, it would be highly improbable to believe that on her entering the house. they left the same. He argued that the obvious conclusion that can be drawn is 8 (HIPRO , CRP Ne eho af ogi that DE entered the house along wih other defendants on 1QOS.207S and high handedby necked aut the hapless plaintiff and his wife from the suit property. Hence, pRUnNG is entitled to recover possession by Hing summary suit under section & of Specific Relief Act AS he filed the suit within six months iter his dispossession, the suit was lovally sustainable. (ec) Castieuting the contention of D? af having right of residence in the suit property as a shared household, learned counsel argued that under law. DY ean exercise such right to stay if the said house property belongs to her hushand or if her husband obtained the house on tease and paying rents ar that the house property is a joint fami! ¥ property wherein her husband js having a share. In such an instance. lat being the wife of one of the members of the joint family can claim the right of residence, However, he would argue. in the instant ease, the house property is the exclusive property of the plaintiff and hence. t's husband cannot claim any right therein subsequent to the exceution of eilt deeds. As such, DT alse cannot clan the right of residence in the suid Property, "This aspect was amply discussed and the contention of DE was negatived by the trial court basing on the decision of Apex Court in SR Batra and Ors. cause (supra 1). Ve, thus. prayed to dismiss the CRP. oY, The point for consideration is whether the judement of trial courcis factually and legally sustainable? 9 UDPR. CRP Nog So af 2015 1Q. Point: The plaintifi fled the summary suit under Section 6 of Speerhe Relich Act. tis profitable to extract said section, whieh is thas: "section 6 - Suit by person dispessesxed of immovable property: | (2) Tf amy persan ix dispossessed without his comsent op immovable property athenvise than in due course of lene, he or ey person ifthroueh whom he has hees in possession er aay person! claiming through him men, by suit, recover possession Hereof, nepvithsteuclit fe ae other nile that mey be setup in such suit. (2) Ne suit under ihis section shel! he brought (ec) after the expiry af sis month from the date of dISPONsession, a (2) against the Government, (2) No appeal shell lie from any order or decree passed in any suit iistitided under this section, nor shall anv review of ary such arder ar decree be affowee. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from NDEI io establish his tithe to suet property and io recover Possession thereaf. " Hi. A study of Section 6 gives us an understanding that the relief of recovery Of passession to the plaintt? will be mainly based on the facts that 1) he was in possession of an immovable property from which he was dispossessed by some other: 2) the plaingtf fled the suit under Section 6 within six months from the date of his dispossession: Sy ina suit of this nature, plaintiffs possession rather than his title is a paramount consideration, 4) the defendant. who claims tithe has te iG LUSPRA . CRP No.1 pf 2019 establish the same im an independent action and seek for recovery of POSSESSION, f2. "Phus. the object of Section 6 manifestly is fo protect the possession GPa person in respect of an immovable property and if the other person claims tithe us the said property, such disputed right shall be decided by due process of Jaw and not otherwise and particularly, the person claiming the title shall not take fas inte his hands. Vhis suction is obviously based on public policy. Phe characteristic features of Seelion 6 were delineated ina slew of decisions. 1) ln Gawfoy Aamar Pandey and Ors. . Gulbahar Sheikh and Ors. the Lon ble Apex Court observed thus: "aosett qader Seetion 6 of te Aci is often called a sununory seit isasmuch as the enquiry in the suit under Section 6 is canfined to finding eut the possession ane dispossession witli a periged af six months fram the date af the jastintion af te suif ienartie fhe question of litle. Subsections (3) of Section 0 priavides that no appeal shell fie from anne arder ar decree pasxect icin sud lastitutecd under tis Section No reviews of any such arder er decree is pernitttect. fhe remedy af a person arsuevessfiul ina suit ueder Section 6 of the Act is to file a reenlar sul establishing bis tithe fa te sill praperty and in the event of his succeeding he will be entitled to recever possession af the property notwithstanding the adverse decision under Section 6 of fhe Aci Thus, ax ' . : . { a * "aE y pdaos pans fegey i cece a decision tinder Section @ af ie slot, Ute revision is availadle but that ix only by avery af ct exception: Jor SOO CS) ALAR AS CoC} MEANEVSE DADS 20d (i) Ors, thus: * 2005 ¢ "MMF Y ij LPR CRP Mo.G)9 of BOLO the High Court wanuld nat interfere wiffh a deeree ar order under Section @ of the let except an a cease for interference befles sade out within the well settle parcuneters of the exercise of revisional furisdiction under Section £85 of the Code." In Aagvakadhara Constructions vo Kidhansi Lakshenit Bai and this Court observed thus: "Ir the sult af this weitere, the guestion af title is rot vermone. Section 6 af the Aci enviscges o suit few possession on the premise of dispassessian af ihe plainny? without his consent of timmovahle property otherwise thet in due course of law. When the sui is filed under sectian 6 of the Act for possession, the sole cansicerction for the Court is possession, The scape of enquiry iy ths limited' to possession within six moaths inunediately preceding the dete af filing af ihe suit. in such a suit, the defendant cannal setup a defence of title in hinwelf The ony defence that can legitimately be set up ix antecedent possessor. Fis obvious fran Sub-sectian (1) af Section 6 af the Aet itself, which Revs dent the person dispossessed can recover possession notwithstandina any other title that may be setup in such suit, Thus, the scope of enquiry is (rated to the question af possession, In Mohd. fhrakhim and Ors. » Munal, this Court observed "As righily contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners the anly paint for consideration i this revision would be whether the respandent was in possession af the peoperty and if she wea forcibly 6) ALP 805 POPOL OS Dy ALD IO LAPEE GAZ O06 ja LPR] ~ CRP Nog bo of 2g dy dixpassessed front the property within six montls prior to the date of filing of the suit." iv In Katia Penchateswamy and Ors.» Mopurnu Veera Rayhave Rediy', similar view was expressed by this Court. Ia. In the light of above jurimetries. it has to be seen whether plaintiff in the instant case was in possession of ihe suit property and he was dispossessed fram the same on 10.05.2015 and whether he Med the suit within six months thereafier. It is needless to emphasize that the tite of either parties is only academic in the instant suit though may be prominent ina suit based on title filed by either party. id. Plamitith was examined as PLW.L. fle deposed in tune with the plaint averments and stated that he purchased the vacant site ander XAE ithe name of his son. Since he was retired and it was difficult ta get loan in his name, hence, the loan was obtained in his name and inthe name of his son. Plaintiffs claim is that he paid the foan instalmenis out of his own imoney. His case is that in as much as the suil property belongs to him, his sen executed two gift deeds under Exs.A2 and AS in his favour and thereby. the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property. his is the evidence of plaintill with regard to the origin of the suit preperty. ft must be noted that plaintiffs son Maddimseni Vasudeva Nrusimha Satyanarayana is not a purty to the stat but his wife Le. D1 is the party. Be that it may, D1 also dich net dispute about the facturm of execution of the gifi deeds. SROPECSS ALTE 303 -- MAN AP IO DEG 20 bof i LOPRA $ CRP Noo io of 2019 Her case is that the suit property belongs to her husband and in view of the matrimonial disputes between herself and her husband. he colluded with his parents and executed sham and nominal gilt deeds in favour of plaintif obviously to smother ber right af residence in the suit property. So trom the pleadings and evidence. 1 is clear that plaintiff's son executed two yilt deeds in favour of plaintif? in respect of the suit property and though D1 claims the same as a sham transaction, she has not so far filed any independent suit questioning the validity of the ait deeds. It is already discussed supra that in a suit of this nature filed under Section 6 of Specific Rehef Act, tile of the parties is not germane for consideration except possession. En that view. for the sake of this suit, the carntentions of defendant with regard io the validity of the gift decds cannot be taken into consideration. On the other hand, having regard to the fact that hxs.A2 and Ad are rogistered gift deeds, the title of the plaintd? for the sake of this sutt can be accepted though the same is the subject matter ina comprehensive suit based on title. 18. The next crucial aspect for consideration is whether the mlaintief was in possession of the suit property and he was dispossessed by DI to 13 on the evening of 10.05.2015, fa) A perusal of Exs. Ad, AG to ATS and AZO to AZ? would show that plaintiff has been paying the house tax, electricity bills and water tax to the authorities in respect of ihe suit property which imptics that he has been in occupation of the suit property. Apart from the i LPR CRP Noobo af 2019 documentary evidence, the oral evidence of P.Ws.] and 3 would also confiin the same. "Phough 191 contended that the plainuitf was never in possession bul she has been in possession of the suit property, the same is not borne out by any record except her parole evidence. So far as dispossession is concerned. the evidence of P.Ws.t and 3 is pertinent in that regard. P.W.1 stated that due te the matrimonial disputes. 1 has been residing in her parents' house at Akiveedu, whereas his son is working al Abu Dhabi. The plaintiff and his wile who are sickly persons have been residing = sr in the suit fouse, Fle further Stated that while so, D} on the Hl-advise of D2 and D3, taking advantage of plaintiffs old age and sickness highhandedly trespassed ita the plaint schedule property and dispossessed him and his wife on JO.QS.2078 between 0630 pm and O7.00 pm and when questioned, they Unreatencd to kil) him and his wife. He further stated that P,.W.3 and Katni Suryaythi who are neighbours tried to intervene and admonished the defendants but the defendants did not heed. [le stated that he wave report to CLL of Police. TY Pown Police Station, Rajahmundry. under ix AA, (by) PWS. whe is the distant relation ef plaintiY, supported the versian of plaintiff ane stated that on 10.05.2015, he visited the plaintiff at abeut 07.00 pm the defendants came there and threatened the plaintiff and his wife and dispossessed thenr from stint property. fle stated that though himself and Katni Suryavthi tried to imterfere and admonish them. they did not listen to them, This is the evidence relating ta the act af dispossession. "Though these -withesses were LHP CRP Ne.G 12 oF 2079 crogs-examined at fenath, but nothing specific could be extracted to impeach their credibility. P.W.3 denied the suggestion that plamult, his son and this witness colluded together and Mled the present suit te vaeate the first defendant fram the suit property. Thus, the evidence of PLW.1 gets strength from the deposition of an independent witness of 2015, plaintiiY clearly stated that on LO.08 POLS. all the three jefendanis came to their house in the night at about 06.30 or 07 00pm and trespassed into their house and necked out him and his wife. So the factum of dispossession of the plaintiff at the instance of the defendants can be believed. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent, D.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that she came to the suit property on 10.08.2015 and on seeing her, the plaindiff and his wife left the house, This statement would show that she was not residing in the house previously and she came to the SUL hause on 10.05.2015, Her claim that on seeing her, the plaintil! and bis wife lefi the house cannot be believed in view of other circumstances. The plaintiff and his wife are aged persons and the record shows that they have been in possession of the suit house and therefore, it is highly unbelievable that seeing the defendanis, they would leave the house. So the evidence on record clearly establishes the fact that the defendants have highhandedly dispossessed plaintill and his wife. 'The suit was filed on 02.11.2018 secking recovery of possession and it is clear that the suit was fled within six menths CRP No G)a oft from the date of dispossession and the meredients of Section 6 are complied with, (©) The contention of DT that she hus a: wht of residence in the suig property is untenable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in SA Batre aud Ors. v. Taruna Batra fsapra fj. In the above decision, in the context of the claim of a wife for the shared house hold. the Apes Court. in the light of provisions under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, has observed thus: "ls regerads Section §7¢1) af the Act. in anc oputicut Une wife is ony entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared househald, cada 'sheree household' wouted ody neat te house belonsine ta or teken wn rent bee fhe Ausband, ar the house which hei 'anes to (he joint feanily of which the hushed is a menther Phe Properhy in quextion in the presenti case netther belongs to Aniit Batra nor wes it feken on rent by hint sar is i a nae family praperty of whieh the husband Amit Batra is a member it is the exchisive proper: of appellant Ne, 2, matin af Amit Batre. Hence it cannot be called a 'sieved household'. fd) Jn the instant case also, by virtue of the twe arit deeds, the suit property cannot be Geated as the property of the husband of DI to claim right of residence. OF course, this Court is no oblivious of the contention of DT that the twe gift deeds are sham and nominal ones. However, such a contention is net available to her in the present suit and in order to establish the said fact. she can file an indepencent suit. rat the outset, on the conspeetus al the facts and evidence on recard., 7 LIPPRI CRP No. 619 of FOL9 {do not find any Hlegality or irregularity in the judyment of the trial court, This CRP is devoid of any merits. Accordingly, this CRP js dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial court in O.S.No.208 of 2015 passed by learned Vo Additional District Judge. Bay aaends sy ches ag eqn . Rajamahbendravaram. No order as to casts Miscellaneous petitions, HW any pending, shall stand closed in consequence, No orderas to casts, Sdj- MA.SUBHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR fH TRUE COPY # rare SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice U.DURGA PRASAD RAO (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) To 4. The V Additional ®District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 2. OLR. Capies. 3 The Under Secretary, Union of india, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi -- 4. The Secretary, Advocates Association (AP), High Court Bulldings, Amaravati. 5 One CC to Sri K.V.S.S.Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6 One CC to Sri K.Chidambaram, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two C.D. Copies 2 eRe Poe GF, fe Dope fll gre, "ap, a ee Bera op tig Cbtgyeipget we eg ft fee tly % Z % Cr erapppse gpiinieanataae: Fa Mey wh, ty? 4 prin (e%] S vw st a a ™ oo ae LL, cee oO co eer a of ", " wow a QO A Zz. CL x DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS. Oo te o " tO o tM -- i bh he t oy HiGH COURT ORDER
CF