Telangana High Court

Suram Ramanamma vs K. Narendernath Reddy on 1 December, 2022

Bench: Shameem Akther, Nagesh Bheemapaka

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                           AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

        CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.34 OF 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

       This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of

CPC, is filed by the appellant/defendant No.7, challenging the

order, dated 28.10.2021, passed in I.A.No.1040 of 2019 in

I.A.No.1066 of 2014 in O.S.No.619 of 2014, by the VIII Additional

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby, the

subject I.A.No.1040 of 2019 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4

herein/plaintiff Nos.3, 5 and GPA Nos.1 and 3, under Order XXXIX

Rule 2A read with Section 151 of CPC. to punish the

appellant/defendant No.7 for disobedience of Court Order passed

on 28.05.2014 in I.A.No.1066 of 2014, was allowed, directing the

attachment of the schedule property mentioned in Registered

Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing

Document No.4381/2019, dated 20.03.2019, as per law.

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri R.Rakesh Reddy,

learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.7, Sri G.Rajesham,

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiff Nos.3, 5 and

GPA Nos.1 and 3 and perused the record.

                                     2                       Dr.SA,J & NBK,J
                                                           CMA No.34 of 2022

3. For convenience of discussion, the parties will be hereinafter

referred to, as per their array in the subject suit in O.S.No.619 of

2014.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.7 would

contend that the impugned order, dated 28.10.2021, was not in

force as on the date of execution of Development Agreement-cum-

General Power of Attorney bearing Document No.4381/2019,

dated 20.03.2019. The order of interim status quo granted by the

Court on 28.05.2014 was in force till 20.02.2015 only. Thereafter,

it was not extended at all. Therefore, the attachment made in

relation to schedule property mentioned in Registered

Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing

Document No.4381/2019, dated 20.03.2019, is bad in law. It is

also contended that in an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule

1 and 2 of CPC (I.A.No.1066 of 2014), the Court below ordered

interim status quo on 28.05.2014, only in respect of possession

and hence, transfer, alienation and creating interest under the

Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of

Attorney bearing Document No.4381/2019, dated 20.03.2019

would not amount to breach or violation of the said order of

interim status quo, dated 28.05.2014, granted in I.A.No.1066 of

2014 and ultimately, prayed to set aside the impugned order, 3 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.34 of 2022

dated 28.10.2021, passed in I.A.No.1040 of 2019 in I.A.No.1066

of 2014 in O.S.No.619 of 2014, by the Court below and allow the

appeal as prayed for.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1

to 4/plaintiff Nos.3, 5 and GPA Nos.1 and 3 would submit that in

the subject suit for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deed

of defendant Nos.1 to 9, the subject I.A.No.1066 of 2014 was filed

under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking to restrain the

defendants from causing any sort of interference in the subject

land. The Court below, vide order, dated 28.05.2014, granted

interim status quo by keeping the possession of the plaintiffs over

the suit property. The said interim status quo order was extended

from time to time and finally, the said interim status quo order

was extended until further orders. The appellant/defendant No.7

cannot deny the extension of the interim status quo order. The

contention raised by the appellant/defendant No.7 that there is no

extension of the interim status quo order is absolutely false. The

Court below, after adverting to the contentions raised by both

sides, having held that there was breach of interim status quo

order, dated 28.05.2014, is justified in attaching the schedule

property mentioned in Registered Development Agreement-cum-

General Power of Attorney bearing Document No.4381/2019, 4 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.34 of 2022

dated 20.03.2019. There are no circumstances to interfere with

the impugned order, dated 28.10.2021, and ultimately prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

6. In view of the submissions made by both the sides, the point

that arises for determination in this appeal is as follows:

"Whether the impugned order, dated 28.10.2021, passed in I.A.No.1040 of 2019 in I.A.No.1066 of 2014 in O.S.No.619 of 2014, by the VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, directing the attachment of the schedule property mentioned in Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing Document No.4381/2019, dated 20.03.2019, is liable to be set aside?"

POINT:-

7. There is record to substantiate that the plaintiffs filed the

subject suit in O.S.No.619 of 2014 for declaration of title and

cancellation of sale deed of defendant Nos.1 to 9. They have also

filed I.A.No.1066 of 2014 in the said suit seeking interim injunction

order. The Court below, by order, dated 28.05.2014, was pleased

to grant interim injunction. The operative portion of the said order

reads as follows:

"...this Court doth order interim status quo by keeping the possession of the petitioner over the suit property till 12.06.2014."

                                   5                     Dr.SA,J & NBK,J
                                                       CMA No.34 of 2022

Further, there is no denial by the appellant/defendant No.7 that

the said interim status quo order was extended till 20.02.2015.

The material placed on record further reveals that the Court below

was pleased to extend the said interim status quo order until

further orders, by way of order, dated 31.12.2014. The said

interim status quo order has not been vacated so far and the

subject I.A.No.1066 of 2014 is still pending consideration before

the Court below. Therefore, the extension of the interim status

quo order until further order, by way of order, dated 31.12.2014,

falsifies the contention that there was no extension of interim

status quo order. Moreover, the order of interim status quo reads

as "by keeping the possession of the petitioner over the suit

property till 12.06.2014". Thus, the Court below, by referring to

the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property, was pleased

to pass such an order. Admittedly, the appellant/defendant No.7

did not get the said interim status quo order vacated. However,

he executed Registered Development Agreement-cum-General

Power of Attorney bearing Document No.4381/2019, dated

20.03.2019. The Court below, while dealing with the execution of

Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of

Attorney bearing Document No.4381/2019, dated 20.03.2019,

held that the respondent has executed the said Development 6 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.34 of 2022

Agreement much prior to the issuance of copy application which

clearly goes to show the disobedience of the orders of the Court by

the appellant/defendant No.7. The Court below, in paragraph

No.16 of the impugned order, further observed as follows:

"The documents filed by the respondents under Ex.R1 to R7 clearly shows that in spite of knowledge of interim orders of this Court in I.A.No.1066/2014, the respondent No.7 has executed development agreement in favour of the Atlantika Builders which is nothing but disobedience of orders of this Court in I.A.No.1066/2014 thus the respondents No.7 is liable for punishment U/Or.39 Rule 2- A of CPC."

8. The order of interim status quo certainly prohibits execution

and registration of documents, as indicated in the Registered

Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing

Document No.4381/2019, dated 20.03.2019. It is nothing but a

clear violation and disobedience as well as breach of the order

passed by the Court below on 28.05.2014, which was extended

from time to time, until further orders. Therefore, the Court below

is justified in holding that appellant/defendant No.7 is liable for

punishment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC for disobedience of

the orders passed in I.A.No.1066 of 2014 by the Court below. We

are in agreement with the findings recorded by the Court below,

which are based on sound reasoning. There is nothing to take a 7 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.34 of 2022