The petition is u unjust njust and not ma maintainable intainable either in law o orr on
facts. 2.
The petitioner/plai petitioner/plaintiff ntiff is put to str strict ict proof on all the allegations
made in petition which are not expressly admitted here in by this respondent.The Honourable may be pleased to read the written statement of the first defendant as part and parcel of this counter. 3. The petitione petitionerr filed this false petition pra praying ying the Ho Honourable nourable court for restraining the respondent from the alienating the suit property. The suit property was already alienated by the first respondent to the second respondent on 14-10-2015 under the registered sale deed No:- 4988/2015 for valid consideration of Rs. 6,02,000/- . The petitioner has no right or authority to get injection order since the suit schedule property was sold to to second defendant after expiry of limitation of suit agreement of sale. 4. There are no mer merits its in this applicatio application n since the suit is barred barred by limitation and that suit property was sold as per the laws in force. 5. Therefore the first respond respondent ent prays tthe he Honourab Honourable le court may b be e pleased to dismiss this petition with costs in the interests of Justice.
The above stated facts are verified and those facts are true and correct and signed this at Kadapa on 02-04-2018.
Advocate for the first respondent respondent
IN THE COURT OF FOURTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KADAPA
I.A No: 1431/201 1431/2017 7 In O.S No: 115/2017 Shaik shajahan …Petitioner/ Plaintiff Vs. 1.Mamilla Subba Reddy 2.Bhumi Reddy Lakshimi Reddy …Respondents/Defendants
Counter filed on behalf of the first respondent
Filed by:
Sri. B.L., K. Venkata Reddy B.Com., Advocate for the first respondent respondent adapa
Thank you for interesting in our services. We are a non-profit group that run this website to share documents. We need your help to maintenance this website.