Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mohd. Sajjad Sait, vs Smt. Anjinamma, on 29 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No:W.P.No.9107 OF 2019
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
RNT,J & DVR,J
24. 29.09.2023 I.A.No.1 of 2023
This is an application for restoration of the
interim order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9107 of
2019. The interim order dated 12.09.2022 reads as
under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner states
that by mistake no notice is sent to
respondent No.3, prays for the permission to
send notice to respondent No.3. Accordingly,
the same is permitted to send personal notice
on the respondent No.3 by RPAD and file
proof of service.
The case of the petitioner is that he
purchased land of an extent of A.2.20 Guntas
situated in Survey No.214 Gowribidanur
village of Karnataka State. Under an
agreement of sale dated 15.01.2006 from the
respondent Nos.1 to 5. When they failed to
execute the sale deed he approached the
competent Civil Court by filing O.S.No.237 of
2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC at Gowribindanur, Karnataka. The said
suit is partly decree on 25.04.2018. The
decree reads as under:-
"Further, it is ordered and decreed that
consequently, the defendants No.1 to 6 have
been directed to refund earnest money to an
extent of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at
the rate of 18 & p.a. from the date of
agreement Ex.P.2 till its realization. Further,
the plaintiff is entitle a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
as compensation payable by the defendants.
Further, it is ordered and decreed that the
suit in respect of specific performance of
contract is dismissed."
Against which the petitioner preferred
appeal RA No.51 of 2018 before the Principal
District and Sessions Court, Chikkaballapur
and the same is pending adjudication. By
order dated 29.05.2018, the said court
directed the petitioner as well as the
respondent Nos.1 to 5 to maintain status quo
with respect to the Suit Schedule Property till
the disposal of the Appeal. When he came to
know that Respondent No.6 herein filed a Suit
O.S.No.157 of 2014 before the Senior Civil
Judge, Hindupur, Ananthapur District of
Andhra Pradesh seeking specific performance
of agreement of sale dated 24.01.2005. The
suit is referred to the Lok Adalat and Lok
Adalat passed the impugned award dated
06.12.2014 in the Lok Adalat held at
Hindupur.
Sri P.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that both the courts i.e.,
Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, Ananthapur
District and the Lok Adalat award passed by
the respondent No.7 under the provisions of
the Section 19 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987, has no jurisdiction to
entertain the O.S.No.157 of 2014 by the
Senior civil Judge, Hindupur as well as the
respondent No.7 in respect of the properties
situated in Gowribidanur, Karnataka State. In
support of the contentions he relied on the
judgment reported in Badugu Panduranga Rao
vs Legal Services Authority, rep, by its
Secretary, Krishna District at Machilipatnam
and Others (2022) 3 ALT 557.
In Nusli Neville Wadia vs. Ivory
Properties the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the jurisdiction is the authority of law to
act finally in a particular matter in hand. It is
the power to take cognizance and decide the
cases. Jurisdiction is the foundation of judicial
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
proceedings. If the law confers a power to
render a judgment or decree then the Court
has jurisdiction. The test of having no
jurisdiction by the Court is that its judgment is
amenable to attack in collateral proceedings.
If the court has inherent lack of jurisdiction,
its decision is open to attack as a nullity.
When there is a want of general power to act
the court has no jurisdiction. Judgment within
a jurisdiction is to be immuned from collateral
attack on the ground of nullity.
If any decree or award is passed by a Court
without jurisdiction, the same amounts to
nullity and the same is not binding. Based on
the award passed by the Lok Adalat without
jurisdiction now the 6th respondent got
transferred the award for execution from the
executing court i.e., Senior Civil Judge Court,
Hindupur E.P.No.18 of 2017 to the Senior Civil
Judge, Chikkaballapur for execution. If the
said award is executed and the subject
property is handed over to the respondents,
the petitioners' right in respect of the said
property pending before the competent
jurisdictional appellate Court in RA No. 51 of
2018 before the Principal District and Sessions
Court, Chikkaballapur, would become
infructuous and it leads to multiplicity of
litigation.
Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions of the
learned counsel and on perusal of the record,
this court has prima-facie satisfied that the
petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the
grant of interim order. On 17.02.2019, this
court granted interim suspension for a limited
period and extended the interim order from
time to time
Accordingly, there shall be an interim
suspension of the operation of the
order/judgment in O.S.No.157 of 2014 until
further orders.
Post on 10.10.2022."
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
2. Sri Tagore, learned counsel, representing,
Sri P. Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that notice was issued to the respondents.
All the respondents, except respondent No.3 was
served. The petitioner was directed to take steps to
serve the respondent No.3 at the correct address.
In the order dated 15.02.2023, it was provided
that, if notice was not served on the respondent
No.3 by the next date of listing, interim order
granted earlier will be vacated. On 27.02.2023, as
the notice could not be affected on the respondent
No.3, the interim order granted on 12.09.2022 was
vacated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has filed the memo of proof of
service through publication in the Newspaper on the
respondent No.3. Photostat copy of such publication
has been annexed to the memo. The original of the
same has been reproduced before us and on
perusal thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner is
directed to bring the original thereof. However, we
are satisfied that the respondent No.3 has been
served through the publication. There is no
representation for the respondent including the
respondent No.3.
4. After going through the interim order dated
12.09.2022, we are of the considered view that the
same deserves to be restored.
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
5. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2023 is allowed and
the interim order dated 12.09.2022 is extended, till
the next date of listing, if the impugned award has
yet not been executed.
6. List on 03.11.2023.
________
RNT,J
________
DVR,J
Scs
