M/S. Arunachala Logistics ... vs A.Mallesh A.Mallesh Yadav
2021 Latest Caselaw 843 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

                                   AND

            HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

        CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.121 of 2021


JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)


      Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Resu

Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs.

2. The appellant is the 7th defendant in O.S. No.367 of 2019 on the

file of XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

Kukatpally.

3. The said suit had been filed against the appellant and respondents

7 to 12 by respondents 1 to 6 for declaration of title and for perpetual

injunction in respect of an agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.00 gts. in

Sy. No.169 situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District on 25.09.2019.

4. Along with the suit, respondents 1 to 6 had filed I.A No.1913 of

2019 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ex parte ad interim

injunction, restraining the appellant and respondents 7 to 12 from

interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property.

5. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted on 26.09.2019 in

IA. No.1913 of 2019 in OS. No.367 of 2019.

6. The appellant herein filed I.A No.2321 of 2019 to vacate the said

ad interim injunction. But, the Court below had dismissed I.A. No.2321

of 2019 on the ground that some of the respondents have not been

served.

7. At paragraph-9 of its order, the Court below observed as follows:

"It is not out of place to mention that in the suit there are as many as seven defendants and in fact some of the defendants are yet to make their appearance as on today, though the petitioner/defendant No.7 alone filed its written statement. It is also be noted that on 08.12.2020, during the course of hearing the present petition, an order- 1, Rule-10 CPC petition was also filed by another third party and the same was returned with objections. Therefore, enquiry is required to be made to consider the contents of the affidavit of the petitioner/defendant NO.7 and the documents relied upon to establish the same in the temporary injunction petition in I.A No.1913/2019. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.7 also argued that he is ready arguing the main temporary injunction petition itself. However, the same as on date is not possible since some of the defendants are yet to receive the summons in the suit and notices in the temporary injunction petition."

8. We are of the opinion that the Court below could not have

dismissed I.A. No.2321 of 2019 on the above ground and it ought to

have decided the said I.A. on merits as regards the appellant herein, even

if some of the other respondents in the I.A.No.1913 of 2019 are not

served.

9. Therefore, the order dated 21.01.2021 in I.A .No.2321 of 2019 in

I.A. No.1913 of 2019 in O.S No.367 of 2019 of the Court below is set

aside, and I.A. No.2321 of 2019 is remanded to the Court below for

fresh disposal within two (2) weeks, after hearing the counsel for the

petitioner and also the counsel for the respondents 1 to 6.

10. We make it clear that the ex parte ad interim injunction granted in

favour of respondents 1 to 6 on 26.09.2019 is not being extended, but all

parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today, till the disposal of

I.A .No.2321 of 2019 by the Court below.

11. Accordingly, the CMA is allowed. No costs.

12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand

dismissed.

___________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

___________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J March 18, 2021

Note:

Copy of this order be communicated to the XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally By 22.03.2021.

B/O.KTL