Telangana High Court
Mr. Mavoori Krishna, vs Mr. K. Satyanarayana, on 26 June, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1520 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 05.05.2023 in O.S.S.R.No.247 of 2023 in O.S.No.311 of 2023 passed by the learned Vacation Bench, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the docket order dated 05.05.2023 in O.S.S.R.No.247 of 2023, the revision petitioner/plaintiff is directed to file the case before the regular Court. But instead of filing the same before the regular Court, the petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision before this Court. He further contended that as per Section 32(6) of the Telangana Civil Courts Act, 1972 it was specifically stated that "any appeal from the judgment, decree or order of the Court of the Vacation Civil Judge, shall, when such appeal is allowed by law, lie to the High Court." But no 2 CRP under Article 227 of Constitution of India can be filed. As such, the Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited & Others Vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited 1, wherein it was held as follows:
"In addition to this oft-repeated test, there are also additional factors, which must weight with Courts while granting an ex-parte ad interim injunction. Some of these factors were elucidated by a three-judge bench of this Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs.Kartick Das 2, in the following terms:
36. As a principle, ex parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The factors which should weight with court in the grant of exparte injunction are-
(a) Whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;
(b) Whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
(c) The Court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that the making of improper 1 Civil appeal No.4602 of 2024 2 (1994) 4 SCC 225 3 order against a party in his absence if prevented;
(d) The Court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for sometime and in such circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction;
(e) The Court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application.
(f) Even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time.
(g) General principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the Court."
5. Initially, when I.A.No.609 of 2022 in O.S.No.392 of 2022 was placed before the regular Court on 01.08.2022, the trial Court after considering the arguments of both the learned counsel directed both the parties to maintain status quo without interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property till 25.08.2022.
6. Admittedly, a perusal of the docket order, dated 05.05.2023, would reveal that the Vacation Court specifically directed the revision petitioner/plaintiff to file the case before the regular Court, but instead of filing before the regular Court, he hurriedly filed this C.R.P. Therefore, the Civil 4 Revision Petition itself is not maintainable and is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE:26.06.2024 dgr