THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
C.M.A. No. 10 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.
There is no dispute that the appellant filed this Appeal against the ad-interim order made on 20.06.2020 in A.O.P.No. 3 of 2020 on the file of the XV Additional District Judge, R.R. District at Kukatpally, initially, for a period of six days which was extended from time to time. The appellant, who is the 1st respondent in the said A.O.P. had entered appearance on 28.09.2020 by filing a counter-affidavit, thereafter, the matter was adjourned four times and finally, it was heard in part on 30.11.2020 and arguments on behalf of the appellant were completed on 04.01.2021. The 2nd respondent in the present Appeal is to be heard and the matter was in fact listed for the said purpose on 20.01.2021 and thereafter, now the case stands posted to 03.02.2021.
Though learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the judgments reported in ICICI Bank Limited v. IVRL Limited1, East India Udyog Ltd. v. Maytas Infra Ltd.2, Felguera Gruas India Pvt. Ltd. v. R.V.R. Projects Pvt. Ltd.3, Deepak Mittal v. Geeta Sharma4, Ms. Bilasraika Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Devi Trading Company5, Gulf Oil Corporation v. Singareni Colonies6, Sati Oil Udyog v. Avanti Projects and Infrastructure Ltd.7, Aventis Pasteur S.A. v.Cadila 1 AIR 2015 Hyd 179 2 AIR 2015 AP 118 3 AIR 2016 AP 107 4 2017 SCC Online DEL 10365 5 2011(4) ALT 297 (DB) 6 2008(3) ALT 631 (DB) 7 2009 SCC Online GAU 85 2 Pharmaceuticals Ltd.8, Perin Hoshang Davierwalla v. Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla9, A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu v. S.Chellappan10, Zilla Parishad, Budaun v. Brahma Rishi Sharma11, Innovative Pharma Sergicals v. Pigeon Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd.12, Symphony Services Corporation v. Sudeep Bhattacharjee13, L. Sudasrshan Rao v. Evershine Builders Pvt. Ltd.14, Fuerst Day Lawson Limited v. Jindal Export Limited15 and State of Orissa v. Md. Illiyas16, fervently submits that the Court below ought not to have granted ad interim injunction and ought to have disposed A.O.P. filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within 30 days in terms of Rule 3-A of Order 39 C.P.C., this Court does not consider it necessary to refer or advert to the judgments or to the facts of the case in the light of the fact that the matter was part-heard. Though the statutory mandate for disposal of the case is within 30 days, this Court can take judicial notice of the constraints / limitations imposed on account of COVID-19. The learned counsel had copiously drawn attention to various terms of the agreement and the alleged prejudice that is being caused to the appellant, however, considering the fact that what has been challenged before this Court is only an ad interim order made and if this Court has to give a finding with respect to the prejudice that is likely to be caused or otherwise, then it would become necessary to deal with the material documents filed and the arguments that are advanced on behalf of the respondents. The effect of the same would be that 8 2002 SCC Online GUJ 288 9 2014 SCC online BOM 534 10 (2000) 7 SCC 695 11 1969 SCC Online All 237 12 AIR 2004 AP 310 13 AIR 2004 AP 310 14 2012 SCC online AP 682 15 (2011) 8 SCC 333 16 (2006) 1 SCC 275 3 instead of acting as an appellate Court, this Court would be passing the order in A.O.P. thereby giving findings for the first time and expressing its opinion which is not the purport of the observations of the Supreme Court in A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu's case (cited supra), wherein it is stated that when there is inordinate delay, the appellate Court can exercise power under Order 43 Rule 1 by entertaining the Appeal even against an ad interim order.
In the instant case, this Court is not required to entertain the Appeal for the reason that ad interim order was made as far back as on 20.06.2020 and the appellant had made appearance only on 20.09.2020 by filing counter and the docket discloses that as a matter of fact, the learned Judge had cautiously initially passed the order only for six days and thereafter, extended the same from time to time for shorter periods.
In those circumstances, the Civil Miscellaneous Appal is dismissed, however, considering the arguments advanced by the respective parties and the likely prejudice that may be caused for either of the parties, this Court directs the learned Judge to pass orders by completing the hearing without further delay and without granting any adjournments for the respective parties, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks from today. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any stand closed.
----------------------------------- CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 01st February 2021 ksld 4 5