THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2464 OF 2022 AND 302 OF
2023
COMMON ORDER:
Since the facts of the case, issue involved in both these Civil
Revision Petitions is one and the same, both these Civil Revision
Petitions are taken up together and are being dispose of by way of
this common order.
2. C.R.P.No.2464 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners, under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order, dated
02.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.OP No.1 of 2022 by the
learned Principal District Judge, Kothagudem, whereby, the subject
application No.2 of 2022 was allowed granting ad interim order
restraining the Respondent Nos.2 to 10 therein from conducting any
meeting, or passing any resolutions or meddling with the Bye-laws of M/s. Brilliant Educational Society of Technology at Sarapaka by way of any amendment or dealing with the fiscal assets and properties of the society and its affiliates in any manner, pending disposal of the subject O.OP No.1 of 2022.
3. C.R.P.No.302 of 2023 is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 07.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022 by the 2 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 Principal District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem whereby, ad interim order is granted by suspending the operation and enforcement of the amendment to Rule 3(1) of the Bye-laws of Respondent No.1 society therein, covered by resolution, dated 16.09.2022 and to maintain status quo of the Bye-laws of Respondent No.1 society existing as prior to 16.09.2022, till further orders.
4. I have heard the submissions of Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Vankina Allu and Partners, learned counsel for the petitioners in both these Civil Revision Petitions, Sri Junaid Ali Qureshi, learned counsel representing Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the Respondents in both these Civil Revision Petitions and perused the record.
5. For convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their array in C.R.P.No.302 of 2023.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these Civil Revision Petitions would submit that the petitioner No.1 society was established in the year 1997 by Dr.Satish Paul Raj at Sarapaka, Bhadradri Kothagudem district. The society was established to set up educational institutions to serve the general public irrespective of caste, community, religion, etc. and the society intended to promote academic educational institutions and to bring 3 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 the technical education to rural India. In the year 1997, Dr. Paul Raj Engineering College was established at Bhadrachalam to impart technical education to the students in the agency area and thus contribute for development of downtrodden. Dr. Paul Raj Engineering College has excellent infrastructural facilities set up as a very first engineering college in the private sector in the erstwhile Khammam district of United Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner No.1 society has dedicated faculty and student centric administration. Its mission is to motivate and educate students from all parts of both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, including those from local and rural areas. The petitioner No.1 society has completed 25 years and it has become a torch bearer for upliftment of the tribal people and educating them in scientific realm. The Respondent No.1 is a member of petitioner No.1 society and she is also the president of the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church. The Respondent No.1 filed O.OP No.2 of 2022 in collusion with the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church, with ill motives. The Respondent No.1 was the erstwhile president of the petitioner No.1 Society and she has resigned the post of Chairman on 08.10.2021 and handed over the post to petitioner No.2 with all responsibilities and ancillary powers associated with the office. The Respondent No.1 filed O.OP No.2 of 2022 on 06.12.2022 before the Court below to declare the petitioner No.2 and Respondent Nos.2 to 6 as ineligible members of the society 4 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 and they are not entitled to participate in the meeting of the society and to vote for passing any resolution and also to declare that the special resolution, dated 16.09.2022 whereby Rule 3(1) of the byelaws of the society was amended, as illegal, invalid, malafide and unenforceable under law. In the said O.OP No.2 of 2022, the Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 to suspend the operation and enforcement of the amended Rule 3(1) of the byelaws of the society, covered by the special resolution, dated 16.09.2022, till the disposal of the main O.OP No.2 of 2022. The Court below, granted ad interim order suspending the operation and enforcement of the amendment to Rule 3(a) of the byelaws of Respondent No.1 society, covered by the resolution, dated 16.09.2022 and to maintain status quo of the byelaws of Respondent No.1 society, existing as prior to 16.09.2022, till further orders. The impugned order of the Court below is contrary to law and is in divergence of the established procedure. The Court below has passed an exparte ad interim order without considering the fact that Respondent No.1 suppressed the fact that she has been elected as the president of the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church and filed O.OP No.1 of 2022 against the petitioners and respondents questioning the membership rights and when the petitioners raised a question about the locus standi by filing the counter in the said OP, purely to circumvent this obstacle, O.OP No.2 of 2022 was filed and exparte ad interim order was obtained by suppressing the fact that 5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 she is not only the member of petitioner No.1 but she is also the president of the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church. The Respondent No.1 has also suppressed the fact that she chaired a meeting, dated 08.10.2021, wherein the motion to elect petitioner No.2 as a new chairman was moved and she was unanimously elected as a new chairman of petitioner No.1 society. The Respondent No.1 also suppressed the fact that she has resigned post of chairman of petitioner No.1 society on her own accord vide resignation letter, dated 08.10.2021. Suppressing all these facts, the Respondent No.1, in collusion with the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church, obtained an exparte ad interim order, with a malafide intention. The Court below, inspite of having knowledge of the previous round of litigation, passed ad interim order with haste, without appreciating the balance of convenience or irreparable loss to be caused to petitioner No.1 society. The Court below also failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioners did not mention regarding the resolution, dated 16.09.2022 and the amended Rule 3(a) of the byelaws of petitioner No.1 society in O.OP No.1 of 2022 only for the reason that the petitioners are not required to provide information regarding society's personal meetings to the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church, who are rank outsiders. The Court below exceeded its power and committed an error by suspending the operation and enforcement of the amendment to Rule 3(a) of the 6 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 byelaws of petitioner No.1 society. The Court below had given a complete go bye to the cardinal principle that ad interim injunction can only be granted in appropriate cases where an applicant is at serious risk of injury or loss and when there is a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the persons seeking the relief of injunction and more particularly the person seeking the same as a right. The Court below usurped the supervisory power of a society with no basis and also blatantly failed to appreciate the principle of law that there is no vested right for any individual under the constitutional scheme of the counter to be restrictive of religion, creed, sex or any other discriminatory factor. The Court below did not appreciate the established principle of law that any ad interim order in urgent and emergency situations can be passed only for a limited period and a blank order cannot be passed with no time limit. Contending so, the learned senior counsel requested this Court, to set aside the impugned order, dated 06.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022 and remit the matter to the Court below for disposal of the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022 afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing both sides and adduce documentary evidence, if any.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents in both these Civil Revision Petitions would submit that 7 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 the Respondent No.1 is one of the founding members and the life member of M/s. Brilliant Educational Society of Technology at Sarapaka. Dr. S.Paul Raj was its one of the founders and the life chairman. He died of liver cancer in the year 2011. As per Rule 3(1) of the bye laws of the society, its membership is allowed only for the persons belonging to Christian Community, whereas, the petitioner No.2 namely Smt.V. Vara Lakshmi, her mother and her son admittedly belongs to Hindu community. By reason of the clog contained in Rule 3(a) of the bye laws, they are not entitled to be members of the society and to hold any post as its office bearers. Petitioner No.2, not being a Christian by community, but having taken over the reigns of M/s. Brilliant Educational Society of Technology, have been ruining the society. Consequently, the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church, Bhadrachalam, through its president, had filed O.OP No.1 of 2022 on the file of the Court below seeking declaration that in view of the clog contained in Rule 3 (a) of the byelaws, the petitioner No.2, her mother and son are not entitled to be the members of the Society and to hold any post as its office bearers and for conduct of elections and to handover management of the society to such an elected body, as per its bye laws. O.OP No.1 of 2022, having been taken on file on 01.07.2022, notices were issued for appearance on 13.09.2022. The petitioner No.2, her mother and son had made appearance and had got the case posted 8 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 for their counter on 12.10.2022. While the mater stood thus, the petitioner in O.OP No.1 of 2022, having come to know that efforts were being made to amend the byelaws of the Society, filed a petition in I.A.No.2 of 2022 on 12.10.2022 for interim injunction to restrain from making any amendment to the bye laws and meddling with the fiscal assets of the society, during the pendency of the case. Upon hearing both sides, the Court below allowed I.A.No.2 of 2022 restraining from amending the bye laws and also not to meddle with the fiscal assets of the society. Against the said order, the petitioner had filed C.R.P.No.2464 of 2022 before this Court and obtained stay on 07.11.2022 on the ground that the order as to dealing with the fiscal assets will hamper its functioning. On 21.11.2022, the petitioner No.2, her mother and son filed counter stating that on 16.09.2022 itself, there was an amendment to Rule 3 (a) of the byelaws and that the clog contained therein restricting its membership only for Christians was scrapped. This fact as to the amendment, dated 16.09.2022 was neither brought to the notice of the Court below in their counter in I.A.No.2 of 2022, nor during the course of arguments. Such clandestine amendment, dated 16.09.2022, which was resorted to during the pendency of I.A.No.1 of 2022 was suppressed by them. The petitioner No.2, her mother and son, not being Christians are not entitled to be members of the society or to hold any post as its office bearers and as such, O.OP 9 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 No.1 of 2022 was filed seeking such declaration. Therefore, the intent behind making clandestine amendment to Rule 3(a) was to remove the clog contained therein and to gain entry into the society by the petitioner No.1, her mother and son through back door. During the pendency of O.OP No.1 of 2022, the clandestine amendment of Rule 3(a) of the byelaws, since intended to frustrate the very object of creating the clog and since the amendment is being apparently malafide, arbitrary and illegal, O.OP NO.2 of 2022 was filed. In the said O.OP No.2 of 2022, the Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 for ad interim suspension of the enforcement of amended Rule 3 (a) of the bye laws and to maintain status quo ante prevailing prior to 16.09.2022, as regards Rule 3 (a) of the bye laws. The Court below, having satisfied that there is prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the Respondent No.1, granted ad interim order on 07.12.2022 till further orders and directed for issuance of urgent notices to the respondents therein for their appearance on 16.12.2022 and to file their counter. Pursuant to the said notice on 16.12.2022, the petitioner No.2, her mother and son entered appearance in O.OP No.2 of 2022 and had taken time to file counter till 29.12.2022. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner No.2 had filed Transfer C.M.P.No.3 of 2023 before this Court for transfer of O.OP No.1 of 2022 and also filed Transfer C.M.P.No.2 of 2023 for transfer of O.OP No.2 of 2022 from the file of District Judge 10 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 at Kothagudem to the file of District Judge at Khammam. However, in Transfer C.M.P.No.2 of 2023, this Court declined to grant stay while calling for the report of the District Judge at Kothagudem. Thus it is clear that this Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.No.302 of 2023) is yet another futile exercise to conceal the evil designs of resorting to discreet amendment of Rule 3 (a) of the byelaws. Without filing counter in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022, without disposal of the said petition on merits, filing Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India tantamount to abuse of process of Court. Without placing the pleadings on record before the trial Court, the petitioner No.2 cannot seek indulgence of this Court for exercise of its extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the clog contained in Rule 3(a) of the existing bye laws of the Society, the petitioner No.2, her mother and son are not entitled to be the members of the Society to claim that they are the validly elected office bearers. Knowing very well the consequences in O.OP No.1 of 2022, to circumvent the fact that they had dubiously resorted to discreet amendment of Rule 3 (a) of the bye laws by way of alleged resolution, dated 16.09.2022, such amendment, on the very face of it cannot be held to be valid. The fraudulent act of discreet amendment of Rule 3(a) of the bye laws and suppressing the said fact and misleading the Court has been brought to the fore in O.OP No.2 of 2022. The grounds which are 11 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 taken in this C.R.P.No.302 of 2023 as against the order in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022 are the same grounds mentioned in Transfer Petition No.2 of 2023 and in that regard, the petitioner No.2 had invited the observations by this Court which heard the transfer petitions on 25.01.2023 and posted to 27.02.2023. Having suppressed the factum of filing of transfer petitions, the petitioners herein filed Civil Revision Petitions on flimsy grounds, which, on the very face of it, is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court below, in order to protect the aims and objectives of Respondent No.1 society and also in the interest of justice, rightly granted ad interim order, suspending the operation and enforcement of the amendment to Rule 3(a) of the bye laws covered by resolution, dated 16.09.2022 and to maintain status quo of the bye laws of Respondent No.1 society existing as prior to 16.09.2022, till further orders. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are untenable and ultimately prayed to dismiss both the Civil Revision Petitions.
8. Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that vide letter, dated 08.10.2021 addressed by the Respondent No.1 to the governing body members of Brilliant Educational Society of Technology, the Respondent No.1 tendered 12 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 her resignation for the post of Chairman of the Society and transferred the responsibilities and ancillary powers associated with the office of Chairman to the new Chairman to be elected in the Annual General Body Meeting. Pursuant to the same, on the same day i.e. on 08.10.2021, in the Annual General Body Meeting, the petitioner No.2 was elected as a chairman of the society with immediate effect. Subsequently, on 16.09.2022, a resolution amending clause 3 (a) of the bye laws was passed, whereby, the membership of the Society can be obtained by anyone who are interested in the aims and objects of the society, who is an Indian citizen with atleast 21 years of age on the date of admission. Suppressing the fact that the Respondent No.1 resigned to the post of Chairman of the Society, she filed the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O. OP No.2 of 2022 seeking suspension of operation and enforcement of the amended Rule 3(a) of the byelaws covered by the special resolution, dated 16.09.2022 and the Court below, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side, straight away granted ad interim orders by suspending the operation and enforcement of the amendment to the Rule 3(a) of the bye laws. Therefore it is clear that the Respondent No.1 is guilty of approaching the Court with unclean hands. It is settled law that a person invoking discretionary jurisdiction of the Court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of unclean hands and an injunction, being an equitable relief, cannot 13 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 be granted in favour of a person who is guilty of suppressing material facts. In support of his contentions the learned senior counsel had relied on a judgment of this Court in Rt Rev Dr. Prof. K. Reuben mark Vs. E. Prabhu Kumar and Others1.
9. Before proceeding further, it is apt to state that in the year 1997, Dr. Satish Paul Raj established Brilliant Educational Society of Technology to serve the general public irrespective of caste, community, religion, etc. The aims and objectives of the society at the time of establishment was to establish technical, medical and academic institutions and to bring technical education to rural India and also to promote women to face challenges and participate in rebuilding of the nation.
10. Rule 3(i) of the initial byelaws framed by the society reads as follows:
3. (i) Membership: Can be obtained by any one, who is a citizen of India, and above 21 years of and abide with the spirit of the Constitution.
(ii) Category of Membership is General
(iii) Admission fee and monthly subscription: Admission fee Rs.1,000/-and monthly subscription Rs.500/-.
11. On 23.08.1997, resolutions were passed to amend the aims and objectives and byelaws of the society and accordingly, amendments were made. The amended aims and objectives of the 1 2023 SCC OnLine TS 583 14 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 society was to establish educational institutions to serve the Christian community, particularly a Christian converted from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and to bring technical education to the rural Christian of India. Rule 3 i.e. byelaw with respect to the membership was also amended, which reads thus:
3. (a) Membership: Can be obtained by anyone who belongs to Christian Minority specially belonging to Scheduled caste & Scheduled tribe communities who is above 21 years and in agreement with the spirit of the Constitution.
(b) Category of Membership is General
(c) Admission fee and monthly subscription: Admission fee Rs.1,000/-
and monthly subscription Rs.50/-
(d) In case of the foreign national, there shall be unanimous resolution
at a Special governing body meeting specifically called for the purposes to admit the foreign nationals.
(e) Any one who pays Rs.250 per annum and above 21 years of age is eligible to be an ordinary member of the society with voice only.
12. In the same year, Dr. Paul Raj Engineering College was established by the society in Bhadrachalam to impart technical education to the students in the agency area and thus contribute for the development of the down trodden. In the year 1999, the said Engineering College was accorded permanent Christian minority status from the academic year 1999. On 06.11.2003, resolutions were passed to amend the byelaws and the aims and objectives of the society once again and the same was sent to the Registrar of Societies. However, the membership clause remained unaltered members belonging to a Hindu religion continued to be the members of the Respondent society and were also part of the governing body.
15 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302
of 2023
Membership to the people other than Christians was given in view of the aims and objectives of the society. On 02.05.2011, while Respondent No.1 was the Chairman of the society, the petitioner No.2 was given membership and she was inducted into temporary governing body of the society. The amending committee of the society, in tune with the aims and objectives of the society, passed a resolution on 10.06.2011 to withdraw the minority status accorded to the college and accordingly, the authority concerned issued a memo, dated 25.08.2011, cancelling the Christian religions minority status granted to the engineering college. While so, on 08.10.2021, the Respondent No.1 tendered resignation to the post of Chairman of the society but continued to be a member of the society. On the same day, Annual General Body meeting was conducted, presided over by the Respondent No.1, wherein, the petitioner No.2 was unanimously elected as the Chairman of the society. On 03.09.2022, Respondent No.4 issued a notice calling for extraordinary general body meeting on 16.09.2022 to discuss the rules and regulations existing then and proposed amendments to the bye laws. On 16.09.2022, a special resolution was passed amending Rule 3 (a) of the bye laws, which reads as follows:
3. (a) Membership : Can be obtained by anyone who is interested in the aims and objects of the Society, who is an Indian Citizen with atleast 21 years of age on the date of admission and in agreement with the spirit of the Constitution.
(b) Category of Membership is General
16 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302
of 2023
(c) Admission fee and monthly subscription: Admission fee Rs.1,000/- and monthly subscription Rs.50/-
(d) Incase of the foreign national, there shall be unanimous resolution at a Special called for the purposes to admit the foreign nationals.
(e) Any one who pays Rs.250 per annum and above 21 years of age is eligible to be an ordinary member of the society with voice only
13. As the matter stood thus, on 02.11.2022, the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church filed O.OP No.1 of 2022 seeking a declaration that the petitioner herein and others are not entitled to be the members of the society and an interim injunction order was passed directing the petitioner and other respondents not to conduct any meeting or pass any resolution or meddle with the byelaws and not to deal with the fiscal assets and properties of the Society. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.2464 of 2022 before this Court on 27.11.2022 and this Court granted interim suspension on 02.11.2022 observing that the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church does not have locus standi to file the O.P. On 02.12.2022, the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church filed a counter in C.R.P.No.2464 of 2022 stating that Respondent No.1 was elected as President of the Executive Committee of the church and as such, they have locus standi to maintain the O.P. On 05.12.2022, O.OP No.2 of 2022 was filed by the Respondent No.1 to declare that the petitioner and other respondents are not members of the Respondent society and that they are not entitled to participate in the meeting of the society or vote for passing any resolution. Respondent No.1 also sought 17 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 declaration that the special resolution passed on 16.09.2022 amending Rule 3 (a) of the byelaws as illegal, invalid and unenforceable under law. The Court below, vide impugned order, dated 06.12.2022, granted ad interim order suspending the operation and enforcement of the amendment Rule 3(a) of the bye laws and to maintain status quo with regard to the bye laws, until further orders. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.302 of 2023 against Respondent No.1 (Kalvakuri Radha Manjari) and also filed C.R.P.No.2464 of 2022 against the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church represented by its President Rev. P.Johnson, who was arrayed as Respondent No.2 therein.
14. While it is the case of the petitioner No.2 that the Respondent No.1 obtained the impugned ad interim order by suppressing the fact that Respondent No.1 resigned from the post of Chairman of the Society and thereafter the petitioner No.2 was elected as chairman, it is the case of the Respondent No.1 that Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not the valid members of the society, but having managed the passing of the so called special resolution, dated 16.09.2022 and got amended Rule 3 (a) of the byelaws clandestinely and illegally, trying to intrude into the society. Several contentious issues are involved in both the O.OP No.1 of 2022 and 2 of 2022, which are required to be adverted to by the Court below at the time 18 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 of final determination of the said OPs. Admittedly, the order impugned in C.R.P.No.302 of 2023 is an exparte order, passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the other side. The questions of facts and law involved in the subject OPs cannot be adverted to in this Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There can be no dispute with regard to law laid down by this Court in Rt Rev Dr. Prof. K. Reuben mark Vs. E. Prabhu Kumar and Others's case (1 supra), wherein, it was held that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of unclean hands and that the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforce that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement. There can also be no dispute with regard to the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
15. Be that as it is, admittedly the order impugned in C.R.P.No.302 of 2023 is an exparte order passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the other side. The Court below in the 19 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023 impugned order, recorded a finding that even if a resolution, dated 16.09.2022 is taken place for argument sake, without amendment of Rule 3 (a) of the bye laws of the Society, the question of becoming a member by a person other than the Scheduled caste and Schedule tribe does not arise and apparently it is a genuine doubt as to how and under what capacity the Respondent Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 7 have participated and signed in the resolution, dated 16.09.2022. However, it appears that the resignation tendered by Respondent No.1 to the post of Chairman of the society was not brought to the notice of the Court below on 08.10.2021 while passing the impugned order. Had the said issue been brought to the notice of the Court below while passing impugned order, the situation would have been otherwise. In view of the contentions raised before this Court and the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below for disposal of the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022 and also I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.OP No.1 of 2022, afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides and adduce documentary evidence, if any, the said course, would sub-serve the ends of justice. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent No.1 herein if the subject applications are decided on merits after adverting to the contentions raised and the material placed on record before the Court below by both sides.
20 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302
of 2023
16. Under these circumstances, C.R.P.Nos.2464 of 2022 and 302 of 2023 are allowed by setting aside the orders impugned therein. The matter is remitted to the Court below with a direction to the Court below to dispose of the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.OP No.1 of 2022 afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing and adducing documentary evidence, if any, to both the sides, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this common order. Both the parties as well as their respective counsel shall co- operate with the Court below for disposal of the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.OP No.1 of 2022 within the time stipulated above.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these Civil Revision Petitions, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J 28th April, 2023 Ksk