Yedipala Pitchi Reddy vs Gudipati Hanumantha Rao

Telangana High Court

Yedipala Pitchi Reddy vs Gudipati Hanumantha Rao on 3 May, 2024

Author: P.Sree Sudha

Bench: P.Sree Sudha

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.18 of 2024

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 30.06.2023 in I.A.No.165 of 2023 in I.A.No.238 of 2018 in O.S.No.13 of 2018, passed by the learned V - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

2. Initially, respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.13 of 2018 against the appellants/defendants for specific performance of contract and obtained Status-quo order in I.A.No.238 of 2018 dated 16.07.2018, against which appellants have filed an application in I.A.No.165 of 2023, seeking to vacate the Status-quo order dated 16.07.2018, but the said application was dismissed by the trial Court by Order dated 30.06.2023. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that respondent herein had filed I.A.No.594 of 2019 under Order 6 rule 17 to amend the plaint prayer by adding para 5(a), which reads as follows:

"The defendants forcefully occupied the suit schedule rice mill on 01.08.2018 and deprived the plaintiff's income. The defendants are liable to deliver the possession of the petition schedule rice mill and pay mesne profits till the delivery of possession."

The respondent/plaintiff had also filed I.A.No.593 of 2019 under Order 6 rule 17, requesting the Court to amend the plaint. Accordingly, para 1(a) was also included, which reads as follows:

"The defendants may be directed to deliver the possession of the petition schedule rice mill to the plaintiff and pass such orders as this Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

In view of the amendments of the plaint, appellants contended that respondent is not in possession of the suit schedule property and thus requested the Court to vacate the Status-quo granted by the trial Court. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

4. The appellants/defendants are running a rice mill and the Chartered Accountant of the appellants had filed the suit in O.S.No.13 of 2018, for specific performance of agreement of sale. Respondent contended that he purchased the suit scheduled property from the appellants/defendants and paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- to appellants 3 and thus requested the Court for refund of Rs.50,00,000/-, if the Court refused to grant a decree of specific performance.

5. Initially, respondent stated that rice mill is in his possession and appellants may sell away the property during the pendency of the proceedings, as such the trial Court granted the Order of Status-quo. However, appellants contended that in view of the amendments sought for by the respondent, it is clear that appellants are in possession of the suit schedule property, they are the owners of the rice mill, respondent is only the Chartered Accountant and he was involving into their business affairs and causing much loss, as such requested this Court to vacate the Status-quo Orders. Appellants also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pooja Mittal Vs.Rakesh Kumar and others, in which it was held as follows:

"In our opinion, the High Court committed manifest error in directing the parties to maintain status quo despite the fact that no prima facie case was made out by the plaintiffs for grant of such relief.

As the suit is still pending between the parties, we refrain from making any further observation lest it would affect eh plea available to the concerned parties before the trial Court in the pending suit.

Suffice it to observe that the impugned order directing the parties to maintain status quo cannot be sustained in the fact situation of the present case. The same is set aside. However, at the same time, it is made clear that any action/step taken by the appellant in 4 respect of the suit property will be subject to the outcome of the suit pending before the trial Court."

6. Considering the arguments of the appellants Counsel, in view of the amendment sought for by the respondent, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to vacate the Status-quo Order dated 16.07.2018, passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.238 of 2018.

7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, setting aside the Order of the trial Court dated 30.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.165 of 2023 in I.A.No.238 of 2018 in O.S.No.13 of 2018. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 03.05.2024 tri 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.18 of 2024 DATE: 03.05.2024 TRI