M/S Ace Hcb Private Limited vs Aditya Construction Company ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1632 Tel

Item No.23

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                         W.A.No.787 OF 2019

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    The appellant (respondent No.7 in W.P.No.21466 of 2019) is

aggrieved by an interim order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned

Single Judge on an interim application, registered as I.A.No.1 of

2019, moved by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner praying inter alia

for issuing directions to the respondent/authorities (District Registrar/

Sub-Registrar) not to receive or register or release any document

presented by the respondent No.6/M/s. Prime Properties in respect of

its land situated in Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the said

petition. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has taken

note of an order dated 04.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.22896 of 2018

and granted the interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner.

2. Mr. Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

the appellant/respondent No.7 submits that vide order dated

29.06.2020 passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.500 of 2019 and

connected appeals, the interim order dated 04.06.2019 granted in

favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.22896 of 2018, was vacated.

3. We are informed that aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated

29.06.2020, the respondents in the said appeals have approached the

Supreme Court by preferring SLPs that are pending consideration.

4. Mr. M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

the respondent No.1/writ petitioner informs the court that aggrieved

by the impugned interim order, the respondent No.6/M/s. Prime

Properties has already moved an application for seeking vacation of

the said order on which notice has been issued and pleadings have

been directed to be completed.

5. Learned counsel for the parties state that the respondent

No.l/writ petitioner has filed a contempt petition being aggrieved by

the non-compliance of the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 against

the appellant herein on which notice was issued on 30.04.2021 and the

same is now listed on 09.07.2021.

6. As we are informed that the contempt petition filed by the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner will be listed before another Bench,

whereas the vacate stay application moved by the respondent

No.6/M/s. Prime Properties will be listed before the Bench dealing

with revenue matters, we are not in a position to direct both the

matters to be listed before the same Bench. It is for the parties to make

such a request.

7. At this stage, Mr. Surender Rao, learned Senior Advocate states

on instructions that his client will not press the contempt petition till

the vacate stay application moved by the respondent No.6/M/s. Prime

Properties is heard and disposed of by the roster Bench.

8. Satisfied by the above assurance, Mr. Parasaran, learned Senior

Advocate appearing for the appellant states that he does not wish to

press the appeal.

9. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of along with the

pending applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

14.06.2021 Lrkm/pln