Sri. G. Rajendran vs Sri. K. Gopi
2022 Latest Caselaw 5795 Tel

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                      C.R.P.No.483 OF 2019
ORDER:

This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is directed against the order,

dated 13.11.2018, in C.M.A.No.19 of 2018, on the file of the

XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad,

wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein was allowed,

setting aside the order, dated 17.04.2018, in I.A.No.231 of 2017 in

O.S.No.258 of 2017, on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge's Court,

City Civil Court, Secunderabad granting interim injunction in

favour of the respondents herein.

2. Heard Sri R.Mahender Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the

petitioners and Dr.K.Laxminarasimha, learned counsel for the

respondents. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners are the defendants ("defendants" for short)

and the respondents are the plaintiffs ('the plaintiffs" for short) in

O.S.No.258 of 2017.

4. The facts, which are necessarily be stated as prelude to the

order, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and consequential

perpetual Injunction in respect of the schedule property

i.e. dilapidated old house bearing No.1-11-250,

(New House No.1-11-250/B/A) admeasuring 1000.00 square yards

or 836.00 square meters in Sy.Nos.53/5 and 89/1 situated at

Shamlal Building, Begumpet, GHMC, Secunderabad. While so,

the respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.231 of 2017 under order 39

Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) for

temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering

with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule

property. The defendants filed counter opposing the said

application.

5. During enquiry, Exs.P-1 to P.7 were marked on behalf of the

respondents/plaintiffs and Exs.R-1 to R-49 were marked on behalf

of the petitioners/defendants.

6. On a consideration of the material documents available on

record, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the

plaintiffs failed to establish the prima facie case and balance of

convenience in their favour for grant of temporary injunction.

Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the respondents/plaintiffs

filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.19 of 2018. The learned Additional

Chief Judge, on re-appraisal of the evidence on record set aside the

order of the trial Court and allowed the appeal vide order,

dated 13.11.2018. Assailing the same, the petitioners/defendants

filed the present civil revision petition.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/defendants

submits that the appellate Court committed error in allowing the

appeal. He further submits that the plaintiffs have suppressed the

material facts of filing of suit in O.S.No.2106 of 2012 on the file of

VII Senior Civil Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar

between the same parties in respect of the same property. When

they failed to get favourable orders, the present suit has been filed

by changing the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The plaintiffs

failed to show prima facie case that they are in possession of the

schedule property and balance of convenience is in their favour.

8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the defendants

are in possession of the entire property admeasuring 7528 square

yards including the schedule property. He also submits that the

impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of

suppression of material facts. More so, they failed to satisfy the

cardinal principles for grant of temporary injunction in their

favour. He placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in

Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1.

9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the

respondents/plaintiffs while supporting the order of the appellate

Court submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any

illegality and that there is no error apparent on the face of record.

He also submits that the there is no suppression of material facts.

The appellate Court has rightly discussed the rival contentions and

rightly set aside the order of the trial Court and granted temporary

injunction on being satisfied that the plaintiffs have established the

prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour.

Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference.

1 (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114

10. Here, it is apt to note, briefly, the case of both the parties as

under:

That the plaintiffs are joint absolute owners and possessors

of the schedule property having purchased the same from

Smt.Bathula Narsamma for total consideration of Rs.1,87,000/-

under registered sale deed dated 03.09.1993. Ever since, they are

in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants tried to

interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the schedule

property.

11. Whereas, it is the case of the defendants that

late G.Mahalakshmi, M/s.GRT Hotels and Resorts Private Limited,

M/s.Macur Hospitality India (P) and M/s.Mamallapuram Hotels (P)

Ltd and others purchased the immovable property admeasuring

7528 square yards under seven registered sale deeds on

11.05.2006. The said property was earlier mortgaged by the

predecessors-in-title to M/s.Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank

Limited and put the property in auction. The above said persons

purchased the property, after M/s.Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank

Ltd., has obtained clearance from Government of Andhra Pradesh

vide Memo No.19201/Co-op III (1) 2005-1,

dated 18.04.2006. Subsequently, M/s.Macnur Hospitality India (P)

Ltd., and M/s.Mamallapuram Hotels (P) Ltd., were merged into

M/s.GRT Hotels and Resorts Private Limited, by virtue of the

orders of High Court of Madras, dated 13.04.2009 passed in

Company Petition Nos.8 to 10 of 2009. M/s.G.R.Thanga Maligai

Pvt., Ltd., was changed to M/s.G.R.T.Hotels and Resorts Private

Limited with effect from 21.03.2007. Thereafter, other six

purchasers have executed and registered lease deeds in favour of

the defendants vide document Nos.2258, 2259, 2260, 2261, 2262

and 2263 of 2008, dated 26.06.2008. Since then, the defendants

are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property including

the schedule property.

12. A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the trial

Court has considered the documents filed by the plaintiffs and the

defendants and dismissed the application for grant of temporary

injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs have suppressed the

filing of suit in O.S.No.2106 of 2013 on the file of VIII Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in respect

of the same schedule property between the same parties and also

about the suits between their vendors and compromise proceedings

between them in O.S.No.594 of 2012.

13. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.2106 of 2013 for

perpetual Injunction against the predecessors-in-title of the

defendants and the defendants, wherein I.A.No.1529 of 2013 was

also filed for grant of temporary injunction and the same was

dismissed. Against dismissal, the plaintiffs filed CMA.No.5 of

2016 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B.Nagar. Admittedly, the said suit was also between

the same parties and in respect of schedule property in the present

suit.

14. Since the present suit is a comprehensive suit filed by the

plaintiffs seeking declaration of their rights and Perpetual

Injunction, while so, the sole question that arises for consideration

for disposal of this petition is; whether non-mentioning of filing of

earlier suit in O.S.No.2106 of 2013 and details thereof in the

present suit, would disentitle the plaintiffs for order of temporary

injunction.

15. It is not in dispute that the present suit was filed by the

plaintiffs for the relief of declaration of title in respect the schedule

property and also for grant of Perpetual Injunction. However,

admittedly, the plaintiffs failed to mention the details of their filing

of O.S.No.2106 of 2013, but that itself does not amount to

suppression of material fact, as the present suit was filed for

declaration of title and for Perpetual Injunction and the said suit

was not decided on merits and only temporary injunction

application was dismissed.

16. It is well settled principle of law that application for

temporary injunction would be decided on three well recognized

principles;- firstly, prima facie case, secondly, balance of

convenience and inconvenience and thirdly, irreparable loss and

injury. The injunction is a discretionary and equitable relief and

may disentitle the plaintiff an order of injunction, if there is a

suppression of the material facts.

17. However, there lies a distinction between the suppression of

the facts and suppression of material facts. The material facts are

those which have a direct nexus and impact on the disputes

involved in the suit or a proceeding and the suppression thereof

may disentitle the plaintiff to have the order of injunction in his

favour. In the instant case, non-mention of details of previous suits

between the same parties may amount to non-furnishing of details

of disputes between the parties, but it is not a material fact, which

would have impact on the dispute involved in the suit.

Since the present suit is a comprehensive suit filed by the plaintiffs

and non-furnishing of details of earlier suits filed by them between

the same parties does not amount to suppression of material facts

and consequently, they are entitled for the discretionary and

equitable relief of temporary injunction.

18. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the appellate

Court has rightly appreciated the material on record and took

a view that the plaintiffs have established the cardinal principles

for grant of temporary injunction and, accordingly,

set aside the order of the trial Court and granted temporary

injunction in their favour.

19. Therefore, the impugned order, which is passed on due

consideration of the material on record and in proper exercise of

discretion, does not call for any interference of this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

20. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any,

pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 14.11.2022 Note:

Issue C.C. by 17.11.2022.

B/o.

Nvl