Telangana High Court
Sri. Shyam Lal Jain vs Smt. Prem Kumari Verma on 2 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2380 of 2024
ORDER:
Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior counsel representing Ms. Pratusha Boppanna, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners in O.S.No.86 of 2024 on the file of XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, filed I.A.No.1391 of 2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The Court below has passed docket order dated 24.07.2024 and directed issuance of notice to the respondents by making it returnable by 19.08.2024. The aforesaid interlocutory application is still pending and needs to be heard on 19.08.2024.
3. The two observations of Court below were called in question by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and it is submitted that in para No.3 of the said docket order, the Court below at best could have stated that it is not fit case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Instead, the Court below stated that it is not fit case to grant ad-interim injunction as prayed for. In that 2 SP, J CRP_2380_2024 event, there was no occasion for the Court below to keep the interlocutory application pending and post the matter on 19.08.2024. Secondly, the 'Doctrine of lis pendens' flowing from Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applied by the Court below 'till final disposal of the matter', whereas it is clear from the judgment of High Court of Bombay in the case of Prakash Gobindram Ahuja vs. Ganesh Pandharinath Dhonde 1 and the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in the case of K. Ravi Prasad Reddy vs. G. Giridhar 2, that this Section could not have been applied. The said arrangement at best could have been made till 19.08.2024, when the interlocutory application is pending, and not till final disposal of the matter. This kind of observations made by the Court below may be interfered with.
4. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners at length.
5. In case, I.A.No.1391 of 2024 is still pending (docket order dated 24.07.2024, nowhere shows that it is disposed of), the Court below shall decide the said interlocutory application in accordance 1 MANU/MH/1952/2016 2 2022 (2) ALD 357 (AP) (DB) 3 SP, J CRP_2380_2024 with law on the basis of relevant parameters for grant of injunction. The petitioners will be at liberty to rely on the judgments cited supra before the Court below. The Court below shall decide the aforesaid interlocutory application in accordance with law without getting unnecessarily influenced by its previous order dated 24.07.2024.
6. With the aforesaid observation and without expressing any views on the merits of the case, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL Date: 02.08.2024 GVR