IN THE COURT OF FOURTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KADAPA

I.A No: 1431/2017

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

1. The petition is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on

facts.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff is put to strict 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 petitioner filed this false petition praying the Honourable 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
second defendant after expiry of limitation of suit agreement of sale.

4. There are no merits in this application since the suit is barred by

limitation and that suit property was sold as per the laws in force.

5. Therefore the first respondent prays the Honourable court may be

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

IN THE COURT OF FOURTH ADDL

DISTRICT JUDGE KADAPA

I.A No: 1431/2017

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. K. Venkata Reddy B.Com.,

B.L.,

Advocate for the first respondent

Kadapa