Telangana High Court
Dale Kalpana vs Gopal Deepika on 4 February, 2022
Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy, M.Laxman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
C.M.A.NO.59 OF 2022
JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy)
Assailing the order and decree dated 30.12.2021 passed by the court of
IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No.1856 of 2018 in
O.S.No.743 of 2018, in allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 40
Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, and thereby appointing a receiver; the defendants 1
to 5 in the suit filed the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants / defendants submits that the trial
court allowed the interlocutory application filed by the respondents / plaintiffs only on the
ground that the temporary injunction granted against the appellants/defendants in
I.A.No.1855 of 2018 dated 16.04.2021 in the suit, has become final. He submits that the
said order has been suspended by this court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in CMA No.351 of 2021
dated 18.08.2021, and though the same was brought to the notice of the trial court by
filing a memo, it was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order.
3. Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs could not
dispute that the temporary injunction granted against the appellants / defendants was
suspended by this court in CMA.No.351 of 2021. He submits that respondents / plaintiffs
have filed a vacate petition for vacating the interim order dated 18.08.2021.
4. In this case, a reading of the impugned order goes to show that the receiver
appointment application was allowed mainly on the ground that the temporary injunction
granted against the appellants / defendants has become final. But the fact remains that
this court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in CMA.No.351 of 2021 dated 18.08.2021 passed interim
order suspending the temporary injunction granted by the court below, and the case of the
learned counsel for the appellants is that the same was brought to the notice of the court
below by filing a memo.
5. The above circumstances show that the court below has not dealt with the issue
properly by taking into consideration all the documents available on record.
6. Even otherwise also, the impugned order does not disclose that the court below
has taken into consideration the parameters laid down under Order 40 of CPC for
appointment of a receiver.
7. In view of the same, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside, and the matter is
remitted back to the court below to dispose of I.A.No.1856 of 2018 in O.S.No.743 of
2018 afresh in accordance with law.
8. As the Interlocutory Application is of the year 2018, the court below is
directed to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The C.M.A. is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
10. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to
costs.
-----------------------------------
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
-----------------------------------
M.LAXMAN,J
DATE:04--02--2022
AVS
