THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.132 of 2023
ORDER:
The present revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2023, dated 09.01.2023, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial .
2. When the matter came up for admission, the counsel for respondents who has filed the caveat, was also heard and this Court has passed interim orders suspending the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.2 of 2023 dated 09.01.2023 and directed both the parties to maintain status-quo.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the trial Court has passed ex-parte interim order and granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the complainant, restraining the respondent i.e., the revision petitioner herein, their men, agents, servants, representatives or any other person claiming through , or under them from in any manner accept the report of ratification submitted by respondent No.2 on the basis of the illegal Diocesan Special Council conducted via zoom on 26.12.2022 for the purpose of counting towards Rule 2(c) of Chapter XIII of the CSI constitution, 2 pending disposal of the suit or until further orders of this Court and the resolution of the Synod Working Committee purported to have been passed at the meeting held on 27.12.2022 and to the declaration made by respondent No.6 in his circular, dated 27.12.2022 till 06.02.2023 and further directed that the petitioner shall comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule3 of C.P.C.
4. On perusal of the said order it is evident that, it is an ex- partie order passed against the petitioner herein. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel that the trial Court ought not to have passed an ex-parte order and the trial Court order did not speak about the balance of convenience between the parties and it only speaks about the prima-facie case and irreparable loss to the plaintiff.
5. It is further contended that Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC was also not complied with and it was a direction subsequent to ad- interim injunction passed by this Court and further two prayers were made under a sign petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 and the trial Court has also granted both the prayers by way of injunction against the revision petitioner herein, which can't be done.
3
6. It is contended by Sri J.Prabakar, learned Senior Counsel for respondents that rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice envisages that separate application has to be made for each and every distinct prayer, which reads as follows:
"There shall be separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. When several reliefs are combined in one application, the Court may direct the applicant to confine the application only to one of such reliefs unless the reliefs are consequential and to file a separate application in respect of each of the others."
Admittedly, in the present matter, two reliefs were sought for, in a single petition in I.A.No.2 of 2023, under prayers 'a' and 'b'.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that in spite of the orders of this Court while granting stay of all further proceedings and directing the parties to maintain status-quo, the revision petitioner herein has conducted two meetings, for which, they have filed a contempt case and the same may also be taken up along with this revision petition. 4
8. This Court is of the considered view that, the contempt case can be independently heard, as there is every necessity to dispose of the revision petition.
9. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court it is evident that, the Court while deciding the matter has not discussed about the balance of convenience which is a must for the Court while disposing of the petition under order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC (Temporary Injunction) and rule 3 is also not complied. Furthermore, the trial Court has granted both the prayers in a single petition and thus violated Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice. Therefore, it is just and necessary to set aside the impugned orders.
10. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 09.01.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial are hereby set aside. As both the parties are on record, the trial Court shall receive the counter of the revision petitioner and pass orders afresh without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, by duly complying with the provisions of Rule 55 of Civil Rule Practice. Till the disposal of I.A.No.2 of 2023 by the trial Court 5 both the parties shall maintain status-quo as directed by this Court, vide order dated 11.01.2023.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Date: 25.01.2023 Lk