Roppen Transportation Services ... vs Telangana State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1220 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                     CRP.Nos.405 & 450 of 2022
Common Order:

      Heard Mr. L.Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel for the

revision petitioner, and Mr. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for

respondent No.1/Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

(TSRTC).

2. This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India to set aside the Common Order dated

20.12.2021, passed by the XXV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court

at Hyderabad (for short 'the lower appellate court'), as well as to set

aside the ex parte ad interim orders dated 03.12.2021 in I.A.No.418 of

2021 and 419 of 2021 in O.S.No 4797 of 2021 passed by the X

Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad (for short 'the trial

court').

3. Revision petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit instituted by

respondent No.1 as the plaintiff being O.S.No.4797 of 2021. The

suit has been instituted for perpetual and mandatory injunction

against defendant No.1 restraining it from telecasting, broadcasting, ::2::

streaming etc., the original and modified versions of the ad films in

question.

4. Injunction petitions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), being IA.Nos.418 of 2021 and

419 of 2021, were also filed by the plaintiff. By separate orders

dated 03.12.2021, trial court granted ad interim injunction directing

defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) to block access to the

original and modified version of the ad film at the links identified by

the plaintiff as mentioned in the orders dated 03.12.2021. While

passing the aforesaid orders, learned trial court directed the plaintiff

to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC by issuing notices to the

respondents and fixed the next date of hearing as 27.12.2021 .

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 03.12.2021, defendant

No.1 preferred appeals before the lower appellate court being

C.M.A.Nos.88 and 89 of 2021. By the Common Order dated

20.12.2021, lower appellate court has dismissed the appeals by taking

the view that revision petitioner should file counter before the trial

court whereafter, the trial court would pass an appropriate order of ::3::

injunction after hearing both the sides. While holding so, lower

appellate court took the view that ex parte interim orders passed by

the trial court cannot be set aside in appeals.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner has placed

reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court being Bhanu

Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar1 and A.Venkatasubbaiah Naidu

v. S.Challappan2. His contention is that it is open to a defendant to

avail either of the two remedies i.e., contest the injunction petition

under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC or file appeal under Order XLIII

Rule 1 CPC. View taken by the lower appellate court that it cannot

side aside ex parte ad interim orders of the trial court in appeals is not

in accordance with law and hence, is liable to be interfered with.

7. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for plaintiff

(respondent No.1) submits that view taken by the trial court is fully

justified. To support his contention, he has placed reliance on a

(2005)1 Supreme Court Cases 787

(2000)7 Supreme Court Cases 695 ::4::

decision of the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd V. Antox India

Private Limited3.

8. Submissions made by learned counsel for defendant No.1

(revision petitioner) have been duly considered.

9. Without entering into any factual matrix, what is evident is that

plaintiff had filed injunction petitions under Order XXXIX Rules 1

and 2 CPC; trial court passed separate orders on 03.12.2021 granting

ad interim injection while directing the plaintiff to comply with Order

XXXIX Rule 3 CPC by fixing 27.12.2021 as the next date of hearing.

However, instead of contesting the injunction petition, defendant

No.1 preferred appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC before the

lower appellate court, which have been dismissed by the impugned

Common Order.

10. Court has carefully gone through the orders of the trial court

and the impugned common order of the lower appellate court as well

as the judgments of the Supreme Court cited at the Bar. While the

1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 727 ::5::

lower appellate court may not be correct in taking the view that

ex parte ad interim orders passed by the trial court cannot be set aside

in appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, nonetheless in the

present proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, inasmuch as

defendant No.1 (revision petitioner) has the remedy under Order

XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. It is open to defendant No.1 to contest the

injunction petitions filed by the plaintiff. Under Rule 3A of Order

XXXIX CPC, trial court is under an obligation to make an endeavor

to finally dispose of the injunction applications filed by the revision

petitioner (defendant No.1) within thirty days from the date on

which the injunction was granted.

11. That being the position, while declining to interfere with the

impugned Common Order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the lower

appellate court in CMA.Nos.88 and 89 of 2021, Court is of the view

that it is open to defendant No.1 (revision petitioner) to move the

trial court by filing objections to the injunction petitions filed by the

plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 3 and 4 CPC and if such

objections/applications are filed, the same shall be considered by the ::6::

trial court expeditiously and at any rate within a period of four weeks

from the date of filing such objections/applications.

12. With the above direction, Civil Revision Petitions are disposed

of. Related interlocutory applications, pending if any, stand disposed

of.

13. No costs.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN , J

Date: 17-03-2022 LUR/SU