THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION.No.2687 OF 2022
ORDER :
Being aggrieved by the order (docket order) of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge who was placed in charge as Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in I.A.No.1025 of 2022 in O.S.No.1931 of 2022 dated 10.08.2022 by which the trial Court ordered an urgent notice in the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for temporary injunction, the present revision has been filed on the following grounds:
The trial Court committed an error in passing an order on 10.08.2022 without taking into consideration of principles of natural justice probabilities of evidence and material on record. The trial Court did not pass any orders in their application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 to restrain the respondents from interfering over the property, but ordered an urgent notice without considering the documents filed before the Court below. The petitioners have claimed that the relief sought for in the interlocutory application was an equitable remedy available to the 2 CRP No.2687 of 2022 petitioners who have been subjected to fraud perpetrated by the 1st respondent who got executed sale deed in his favour from the vendors of late late P.Chenamma in the year 1994 which is after execution of sale deed in favour of late P.Chenamma from whom the petitioners have acquired the title on the property.
2. The petitioners further claimed that the Court below was well-apprised of the fact that the 1st respondent without any right or title over the suit schedule property already interfered the same to respondent Nos.2 and 3. But, the Court below failed to take into consideration and failed to pass any order. Therefore, according to the petitioners even though they established prima facie case and in spite of their apprehension that there will be further interfere into property, the Court below did not consider their arguments and ordered urgent notice in the month of August, 2022.
3. There is no progress in the interlocutory applications for the past 4 months. The trial Court simply adjourning the matter awaiting report from the Nazarat about the service of summons to the respondents/defendants. 3
CRP No.2687 of 2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents/defendants successfully avoided the service of notice and summons and the Court below simply adjourned the matter from time to time.
4. Learned counsel while relying on judgment between Smt. K.Vijaya Lakshmi vs G. Nageshwara Reddy and others reported in 2014 SCC Online Hyd 684, argued that the Court below ought to have dispose the injunction petition or ought to have ordered temporary injunction so as to preserve the situation.
5. In the above referred judgment, this Court observed as under:
"Order 39 Rule 1 CPC enable the Court to grant temporary injunction even without issuing notice to the opposite party. The said provision has been made with an intention to preserve the property as it is. When any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or whether the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors or where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in 4 CRP No.2687 of 2022 dispute in the suit, the Court may grant a temporary injunction. The plaintiff has to establish prima facie case. It becomes the duty of the Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not. The Court further observed that the Courts should examine what is reasonable time required to serve the notice within two or three days. The matter need not be adjourned to longer date."
6. With the above observations this Court disposed of the above referred revision by observing that there is no need to issue notice to the respondent in the revision and revision can be disposed at the admission stage with certain directions to the effect, directing the trial Court to issue notice to the respondent or their counsel and advance the matter to any date within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and hear the matter within a period of (7) days thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the meanwhile both parties were directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on the date of order.
7. In the case on hand the suit was filed in the month of August, 2022. The trial Court having heard the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and obviously after verifying the 5 CRP No.2687 of 2022 affidavit filed in support of the petition ordered an urgent notice. The record shows that subsequently the matter was adjourned from time to time without any progress and as evident from the copy of the docket proceedings, it seems the notice/summons on the respondents were not served thereby the interlocutory application is pending for the past more that 3 months without any order.
8. In the light of what is argued by the counsel for the petitioner and in view of the specific averments that respondent no.1 has interfered the property to the remaining respondent, there is possibility of creating some more sale deed even before they appeared in the suit before the trial Court, the revision is disposed with the same direction which was passed in the above referred revision.
9. In the result, the revision is disposed of. Trial Court is directed to issue notice to the respondents and advance the matter to any nearer date and shall take all steps for service of the notice and decide the interlocutory application after giving liberty to both parties on merits, The parties shall maintain status quo obtaining as on 6 CRP No.2687 of 2022 today till the disposal of interlocutory application on merits.
10. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU Date: 05.12.2022.
Pssk