Muddusetty Kalavathi vs Gundlapalle Jayaram,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1318 AP

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

              CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.281 of 2022

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders

dated 22.12.2021 passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Court of

XI Additional District Judge, Piler, Chittoor District.

2. Heard Mr.V.Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr.Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.147 of 2015 on the file of

the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Piler against the respondents herein

seeking a decree to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering

with the petitioner's/plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

plaint schedule property by way of permanent injunction. In the said suit,

the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.591 of 2015 under Order XXXIX, Rules

1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") seeking a

temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants from interfering

with the petitioner's/plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

plaint schedule property, till the disposal of the main suit.

4. The respondents/defendants filed counter to the said application

and opposed the same. During the course of enquiry in the said

I.A., Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff and

on behalf of the respondents/defendants, Exs.R.1 to R.4 were marked.

No oral evidence was adduced on either side.

NJS, J Crp_281_ 2022

5. After considering the matter, the Trial Court granted temporary

injunction by orders dated 20.11.2015 as prayed for, pending disposal of

the suit. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents/defendants filed

C.M.A.No.23 of 2016 on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Piler,

Chittor District (re-numbered as C.M.A.No.1 of 2017). The learned

Appellate Court by an order dated 22.12.2021 allowed the said appeal

with a direction to the Trial Court to take up the Trial of the suit and

dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably by taking up the matter on

day-to-day basis and with a further direction to both the parties to

maintain status quo, till the disposal of the main suit. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the

learned Appellate Court erred in interfering with the well considered order

of the Trial Court granting temporary injunction pending disposal of the

suit. He submits that the learned Trial Judge had appreciated the

documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner in the correct

perspective and after due satisfaction that the petitioner/plaintiff has

prima facie case and in possession of the property, granted interim

injunction taking into account balance of convenience in favour of the

petitioner/plaintiff. The learned counsel further submits that the order of

learned Appellate Court to the extent of directing the parties to maintain

status quo, till the disposal of the main suit is untenable. He submits the

Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the positive interim

order granted by the Trial Court as long back as on 20.11.2015. He

submits that the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the property and

raised Groundnut crop, which is ripe for harvesting and in view of the

NJS, J Crp_281_ 2022

status quo orders granted by the Appellate Court, the petitioner/plaintiff is

not in a position to cut the same and thereby deprived of the yield. While

contending that the reasons assigned by the Appellate Court in interfering

with the impugned order are not tenable, the learned counsel placing

reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

(Bench at Jaipur) dated 03.02.2021 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

No.136 of 2022 contended that the Appellate Court can interfere with the

orders of the Trial Court, where the order of the Trial Court is contrary to

Law or the findings are perverse: He submits that the injunction was

granted in the year 2015 and the Lower Appellate Court could have

directed disposal of the suit by fixing a time limit instead of modifying Trial

Court's order of temporary injunction to that of maintenance of status quo

by both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner/plaintiff invested huge amount and is prevented from

cutting the standing crop raised by him. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the

Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order to the extent of the

direction to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit, as it is causing

irreparable loss to the petitioner/plaintiff.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants

supported the order passed by the Appellate Court contending, inter alia,

that the appeal was filed immediately in the year 2016 which was

numbered initially as C.M.A.No.23 of 2016 and subsequently it was

re-numbered as C.M.A.No.1 of 2017. He submits that the Appellate Court

examined the material on record and as both the parties to the suit are

possessing documents in respect of the same property i.e., Pattadar Pass

Books, Title deeds and Adangals issued by the Revenue Department,

NJS, J Crp_281_ 2022

directed the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit and

that the same is an equitable order. He also submits that in fact the

respondents/defendants are in possession of the property and they also

raised crops. He further submits that the petitioner/plaintiff under the

guise of the temporary injunction would interfere with the

respondents'/defendants' possession and there is every chance of

dispossessing them from the suit schedule property. He submits that the

Appellate Court after taking into the relevant aspects of the case and on

appreciation of the material on record, modified the order of injunction

appropriately and the impugned order, therefore, warrants no interference

by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the jurisdiction

of which is very limited. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the Revision

Petition.

8. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel on the either side. On the scrutiny of the rival contentions and the

material on which reliance is placed by both sides, the point that falls for

consideration is as to whether the order of the Appellate Court in

interfering with the order of the Trial Court is justified or liable to be

interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India?

9. With reference to the contentions referred to above, it may be

recalled here that the petitioner/plaintiff sought for temporary injunction

and adduced evidence in that regard. The respondents/defendants have

also filed documents in support of their case. The learned Trial Court

discussed the evidence adduced by both the parties elaborately and on

appreciation of the same, granted injunction vide orders dated 20.11.2015

NJS, J Crp_281_ 2022

by assigning the reasons. The learned Trial Court also discussed about the

documents filed by the respondents/defendants and set out the reasons

for not taking them into consideration. On satisfaction of the prima facie

case, irreparable prejudice and balance of convenience in favour of the

petitioner/plaintiff, the learned Trial Court granted order of temporary

injunction by assigning cogent reasons. The interference by the Appellate

Court, under the said circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned

counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, is not tenable. In this regard, it is

profitable to refer to the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan referred

to supra, on which reliance was placed.

10. In the said judgment, the learned Judge, inter alia,

held as follows:-

"Para 10: The principles of Law, governing application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC is no more res integra and it has settled in catena of judgments that if the trial Court has exercised its discretion in granting injunction, jurisdiction of Appellate Court to interfere with the order of trial Court is very limited. The interference in the temporary injunction order passed by the trial Court can be made only in situation where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the trial Court has acted arbitrarily or contrary to law or that findings of trial Court are perverse or capricious, palpably incorrect and are wholly untenable. If, view taken by trial Court is a possible view, the same is not required to be interfered with by the Appellate Court."

11. This Court is of the considered view that the above decision aptly

applies to the facts of the present case. The Learned Trial Court while

considering Exs.P.1 to P.5 also taken into account the three factors

essential for grant of temporary injunction viz., prima facie case, balance

of convenience and irreparable prejudice, in favour of the

petitioner/plaintiff. In such circumstances, when the view taken by the

NJS, J Crp_281_ 2022

Lower Court is possible and supported by cogent reasons, the same

warrants no interference. No doubt, the learned Appellate Court had

undertaken the exercise of appreciating the evidence and found some

discrepancies in the evidence led by both sides, but the direction to

maintain status quo would not enure to the benefit of either party, more

particularly when the Trial Court had granted the temporary injunction on

satisfying that the relevant factors for grant of the same are present in the

facts and circumstances of the case. This Court is of the opinion that the

Appellate Court ought to have appreciated that the view taken by the Trial

Court is a possible view and refrained from interfering with the same.

12. Further, the order of injunction was granted on 20.11.2015 and was

subsisting for a period of more than 6 years. At best, the Appellate Court

should have directed that the suit to be disposed of expeditiously by fixing

the time schedule, by maintaining the order of injunction. It is true as

submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents the appeal against

the order of the Trial Court was filed in the year 2016. However, the fact

remains that the petitioner/plaintiff is enjoying the order of temporary

injunction for more than 6 years, whatever the reason may be. Under

such circumstances, the Appellate Court should have directed the early

disposal of the suit only instead of directing the parties to maintain status

quo, as the injunction order is continuing for considerable length of time.

Though the learned counsel for the respondents submits that a direction

may be issued for sale of the crop and to deposit the proceeds to the

credit of the suit on the premise that the respondents are in possession

and raised crops, having regard to the fact that the injunction is subsisting

for about 6 years in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, this Court is not

inclined to accept the same.

NJS, J Crp_281_ 2022

13. In the aforementioned view of the matter, this Court is inclined to

interfere with the orders passed by the Appellate Court, as the same is in

excess of jurisdiction vested in it and as there is no material irregularity in

the order of the Trial Court nor the same can be viewed as perverse.

14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part by setting

aside the order passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 2017 to the extent of direction to

the parties to maintain status quo. Consequently, I.A.No.591 of 2015

stands allowed. Taking into consideration that the suit is of the year 2015,

the Trial Court is directed to take up the Trial and dispose of the suit, as

expeditiously as possible by fixing a time schedule, in any event, within

a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the matter on its own merits

without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court

for the purpose of deciding the correctness or otherwise of the order

passed in the interlocutory application. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 15.03.2022 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow (B/o) IS

NJS, J Crp_281_ 2022

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

Civil Revision Petition No.281 of 2022

Date: 15.03.2022 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow (B/o) IS