HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.121 of 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Resu
Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs.
2. The appellant is the 7th defendant in O.S. No.367 of 2019 on the file of XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
3. The said suit had been filed against the appellant and respondents 7 to 12 by respondents 1 to 6 for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of an agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.00 gts. in Sy. No.169 situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on 25.09.2019.
4. Along with the suit, respondents 1 to 6 had filed I.A No.1913 of 2019 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the appellant and respondents 7 to 12 from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
5. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted on 26.09.2019 in IA. No.1913 of 2019 in OS. No.367 of 2019. 2
6. The appellant herein filed I.A No.2321 of 2019 to vacate the said ad interim injunction. But, the Court below had dismissed I.A. No.2321 of 2019 on the ground that some of the respondents have not been served.
7. At paragraph-9 of its order, the Court below observed as follows:
"It is not out of place to mention that in the suit there are as many as seven defendants and in fact some of the defendants are yet to make their appearance as on today, though the petitioner/defendant No.7 alone filed its written statement. It is also be noted that on 08.12.2020, during the course of hearing the present petition, an order- 1, Rule-10 CPC petition was also filed by another third party and the same was returned with objections. Therefore, enquiry is required to be made to consider the contents of the affidavit of the petitioner/defendant NO.7 and the documents relied upon to establish the same in the temporary injunction petition in I.A No.1913/2019. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.7 also argued that he is ready arguing the main temporary injunction petition itself. However, the same as on date is not possible since some of the defendants are yet to receive the summons in the suit and notices in the temporary injunction petition."
8. We are of the opinion that the Court below could not have dismissed I.A. No.2321 of 2019 on the above ground and it ought to have decided the said I.A. on merits as regards the appellant herein, even if some of the other respondents in the I.A.No.1913 of 2019 are not served.
9. Therefore, the order dated 21.01.2021 in I.A .No.2321 of 2019 in I.A. No.1913 of 2019 in O.S No.367 of 2019 of the Court below is set aside, and I.A. No.2321 of 2019 is remanded to the Court below for 3 fresh disposal within two (2) weeks, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel for the respondents 1 to 6.
10. We make it clear that the ex parte ad interim injunction granted in favour of respondents 1 to 6 on 26.09.2019 is not being extended, but all parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today, till the disposal of I.A .No.2321 of 2019 by the Court below.
11. Accordingly, the CMA is allowed. No costs.
12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J ___________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J March 18, 2021 Note:
Copy of this order be communicated to the XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally By 22.03.2021.
B/O.KTL