1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

NELLORE
I.A.NO. 262/2012
O.S.NO. 146/2012
1. Isanka Ramesh Reddy
And another

...

Petitioners/Plaintiffs
Vs.
Thermal Power Tech Corporation India Limited,
(TPCL) Represened by Its General Manager,
M. Ramakrishnarao,
Having Its Office at Nelaturu Village,
Muthukur Mandal,
S.P.S.R Nellore District,
Pin.524344
Respondent/ Defendant

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:

1.

The petition is not maintainable either at law or on facts and

liable to be dismissed.
2.

This respondent denies all the allegations made in the plaint

except those that are specifically admitted hereunder to be true

and put the petitioner to the strict proof of the said allegations.
3.

The averments made in Para No. 2 of the affidavit that both

the petitioners got land in Sy.399 at Pynapuram Village and the 1 st

petitioner got Ac.3-00 cents after sale of Ac.6-00 cents by his
mother to the respondent Firm and the and the 2 nd plaintiff is
having Ac.8-00 cents of balance of land with him and both are in
possession and enjoyment of their respective land of the schedule
property and they paying land revenue tax to the suit schedule
property and No.3 Adangal account of Pynapurm Village clearly
showing the total extent of land belongs to them is false and in
correct, and denied as such and the petitioners are put to the
strict proof of the same in accordance with law and procedure.

4.

The further allegations of the same Para that

the

employees of the respondent Firm along with labor came to the

suit schedule property and made attempts to make constructions
in the petition schedule property and the petitioners resisted the
high handed acts respondents Firm with the help neighboring
villagers of the land and employees of the respondent

firm

openly declared that they will make constructions at any cost and
the petitioners could not able to do any thing against respondents
Firm all are here by denied as false and in correct and puts
petitioners to the strict proof of the same.
5.

The further allegations of the same para that the

respondent Firm having got political power and petitioners are not
in a position to resist the high handed acts of the respondent Firm
at all times are all denied by this respondent as false, concocted
and invented for the purpose of the suit and put the petitioners to
the strict of the said allegations. It is also equally false and untrue
that the respondent Firm got huge employment and petitioners
could not able to resist their high handed acts and denied.
6.

It is false and incorrect that if the respondent made

construction in the suit schedule property the petitioners will be

put serious loss and injury.
7.

In this context, it is humbly submitted that the respondent

filed its detailed written statement and the contents of the same
be read as part and parcel of this counter.
8.

It is further submitted that

though the 1 st petitioner

specifically claims that he is the GPA agent of his mother, he filed

the suit in his individual capacity and hence the suit it self is bad
for non-joinder of necessary parties and also mis-joineder of
necessary parties.
9.

The respondent is a company incorporated under companies

Act having its Rigd office at 6-3-1090, T.S.R Towers, Raj Bhavan
Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The defendant company is setting
up Super Bright Thermal Power Project at Nelaturu and pynapurm
Villages of Muthukur Mandal.

10. This respondent humbly submits that it purchased the

immovable property i.e, dry land in an extent of Ac. 16.00 cents in
Survey number 399 of Pynapuram Village and Panchayat area of
Muthukur Mandal with specific boundaries under a registered sale
deed bearing No. 1965/2011 dated 16.09.2011 of S.R.O Muthukur
for valuable consideration and got possession of the property
from the mother of 1st petitioner, 2nd petitioner , Machi reddy
Jayanth Kumar Reddy and Gandavaram Suresh Babu which is
bounded by, East : Bay of Bengal , South : Land of Eswarawaka
Chenchu Rama Krishna Reddy, West : Land belongs to NCC Power
Plant. North: Land of Katragadda Rajendara Prasad, and it is
submitted that the boundaries prevails over the survey numbers
and extents.
11.

There after the respondent company made construction

there in and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above

said property. The total extent of survey number 399 is Ac. 244.70
cents and this respondet purchased the property from the above
said four persons in an extent of Ac. 16.00 cents with specific
boundaries. While so the petitioners approached the respondents
company people and illegally demanded amounts without any
reasons for which the respondents people denied. As the
Respondent company not yielded their illegal demands they tried
to intimidate

the respondent company and threatened dire

consequences further they proclaimed openly that they will get

the constructions stopped by hook or crook and in such attempt
filed this suit with all false allegations.
12.

It is further submits that aggrieved by the denial of the

respondents company, the petitioner got filed the present unjust

and vexations suit and there in filed this interlocutory petition. In
this context, this respondent humbly submits that the schedule
annexed

to the petition and the schedule annexed to the

document No. 3 listed in the list of documents annexed to the

plaint is one and the same and it suggest that the executants of
document 1965/2011 dated 16.09.2011 of S.R.O, Muthukur i.e, 1.

Machireddy Jayanth Kumar Reddy, 2.Gandavarapu Suresh Babu,

3.Yaddala

Mahesh

Reddy,

2nd

Plaintiff

and

4.

Isanaka

Adilakhamma, Mother of 1st petitioner sold the property to this

respondent and now coming with the present petition for the self
same property is nothing but abuse of process of law.
13. There is a specific recital in the documents No. 1965/2011 at
schedule column, the executants sold the entire property
possessed by them after sale of land to NCCPL and hence they
sold away the entire remaining property owned and possessed by
them to this defendant, in Sy.No.399 of Pynapurm Village, under
the above said document. The petitioners came to this Honle
court with knowing fully well that all the allegations made by
them are false to their knowledge.
14.

This respondent begs to submit that they are making the

constructions which are very much essential for their Power

project within the specified boundaries of the land purchased
under registered sale deed bearing No.1965/2011 of S.R.O,
Muthukur.
15.

The petitioner came to the Honble Court with the

dishonest and malicious intention of getting wrongful gain for

themselves and to cause wrongful loss to this respondent and as
such the petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner
suppressed the material facts and filed the petition on false and
baseless allegations and as such came to the Honble Court
without clean hands and hence the petition is liable to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
16. The contention of the petitioners that they are the absolute
owners of the suit schedule property and they have pima facie
case and balance convenience and if the temporary injunction is
granted in their favor no loss and damage will be caused to the
respondent Firm are all false and in correct and puts the
petitioners to the strict proof of the same. Conversely, if any
temporary injunction is granted against the respondent company

it will be put to serious loss and irreparable injury as it spending

huge investments in Crores of rupees
Hence, the respondent prays that this Honble Court may be
pleased to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

I the defendant herein do hereby

declare that what is stated above is true
to the best of my knowledge belief and
information.
Filed by
Advocate for the Defendant.

IN THE COURT OF THE I

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:
NELLORE
O.S.NO. 146/2012

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT :

Ch.Sri Hatri Narayana Rao

Advocate
B-7, 1st floor,
Opp. District Court
G.N.T. Road
Nellore
Cell.9440334725