Telangana High Court
Prof. Dr. B. Vimal Sukumar vs Perumalla Vara Prasad Rao on 25 January, 2023
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.132 of 2023
ORDER:
The present revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the
order in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2023, dated 09.01.2023,
on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial .
2. When the matter came up for admission, the counsel for
respondents who has filed the caveat, was also heard and this Court
has passed interim orders suspending the order of the trial Court in
I.A.No.2 of 2023 dated 09.01.2023 and directed both the parties to
maintain status-quo.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the trial Court has
passed ex-parte interim order and granted ad-interim injunction in
favour of the complainant, restraining the respondent i.e., the
revision petitioner herein, their men, agents, servants,
representatives or any other person claiming through , or under
them from in any manner accept the report of ratification submitted
by respondent No.2 on the basis of the illegal Diocesan Special
Council conducted via zoom on 26.12.2022 for the purpose of
counting towards Rule 2(c) of Chapter XIII of the CSI constitution,
pending disposal of the suit or until further orders of this Court and
the resolution of the Synod Working Committee purported to have
been passed at the meeting held on 27.12.2022 and to the
declaration made by respondent No.6 in his circular, dated
27.12.2022 till 06.02.2023 and further directed that the petitioner
shall comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule3 of C.P.C.
4. On perusal of the said order it is evident that, it is an ex-
partie order passed against the petitioner herein. It is the specific
contention of the learned counsel that the trial Court ought not to
have passed an ex-parte order and the trial Court order did not
speak about the balance of convenience between the parties and it
only speaks about the prima-facie case and irreparable loss to the
plaintiff.
5. It is further contended that Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC
was also not complied with and it was a direction subsequent to ad-
interim injunction passed by this Court and further two prayers
were made under a sign petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2
in I.A.No.2 of 2023 and the trial Court has also granted both the
prayers by way of injunction against the revision petitioner herein,
which can't be done.
6. It is contended by Sri J.Prabakar, learned Senior Counsel for
respondents that rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice envisages that
separate application has to be made for each and every distinct
prayer, which reads as follows:
"There shall be separate application in respect of
each distinct relief prayed for. When several reliefs are
combined in one application, the Court may direct the
applicant to confine the application only to one of such
reliefs unless the reliefs are consequential and to file a
separate application in respect of each of the others."
Admittedly, in the present matter, two reliefs were sought
for, in a single petition in I.A.No.2 of 2023, under prayers 'a' and
'b'.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has further
contended that in spite of the orders of this Court while granting
stay of all further proceedings and directing the parties to maintain
status-quo, the revision petitioner herein has conducted two
meetings, for which, they have filed a contempt case and the same
may also be taken up along with this revision petition.
8. This Court is of the considered view that, the contempt case
can be independently heard, as there is every necessity to dispose
of the revision petition.
9. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court it is evident
that, the Court while deciding the matter has not discussed about
the balance of convenience which is a must for the Court while
disposing of the petition under order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC
(Temporary Injunction) and rule 3 is also not complied.
Furthermore, the trial Court has granted both the prayers in a single
petition and thus violated Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice.
Therefore, it is just and necessary to set aside the impugned orders.
10. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the
impugned orders dated 09.01.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.1
of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial are hereby set
aside. As both the parties are on record, the trial Court shall receive
the counter of the revision petitioner and pass orders afresh without
being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, by
duly complying with the provisions of Rule 55 of Civil Rule
Practice. Till the disposal of I.A.No.2 of 2023 by the trial Court
both the parties shall maintain status-quo as directed by this Court,
vide order dated 11.01.2023.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________________
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Date: 25.01.2023
Lk
