Telangana High Court
Mr. Mavoori Krishna, vs Mr. K. Satyanarayana, on 26 June, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1520 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the
docket order dated 05.05.2023 in O.S.S.R.No.247 of 2023 in
O.S.No.311 of 2023 passed by the learned Vacation Bench,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that in
the docket order dated 05.05.2023 in O.S.S.R.No.247 of
2023, the revision petitioner/plaintiff is directed to file the
case before the regular Court. But instead of filing the same
before the regular Court, the petitioner/plaintiff filed this
revision before this Court. He further contended that as per
Section 32(6) of the Telangana Civil Courts Act, 1972 it was
specifically stated that "any appeal from the judgment, decree
or order of the Court of the Vacation Civil Judge, shall, when
such appeal is allowed by law, lie to the High Court." But no
CRP under Article 227 of Constitution of India can be filed. As
such, the Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bloomberg
Television Production Services India Private Limited &
Others Vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited 1, wherein
it was held as follows:
"In addition to this oft-repeated test, there are also
additional factors, which must weight with Courts while
granting an ex-parte ad interim injunction. Some of
these factors were elucidated by a three-judge bench of
this Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund
Vs.Kartick Das 2, in the following terms:
36. As a principle, ex parte injunction
could be granted only under exceptional
circumstances. The factors which should
weight with court in the grant of exparte
injunction are-
(a) Whether irreparable or serious mischief
will ensue to the plaintiff;
(b) Whether the refusal of ex parte injunction
would involve greater injustice than the grant
of it would involve;
(c) The Court will also consider the time at
which the plaintiff first had notice of the act
complained so that the making of improper
(1994) 4 SCC 225
order against a party in his absence if
prevented;
(d) The Court will consider whether the
plaintiff had acquiesced for sometime and in
such circumstances it will not grant ex parte
injunction;
(e) The Court would expect a party applying
for ex parte injunction to show utmost good
faith in making the application.
(f) Even if granted, the ex parte injunction
would be for a limited period of time.
(g) General principles like prima facie case,
balance of convenience and irreparable loss
would also be considered by the Court."
5. Initially, when I.A.No.609 of 2022 in O.S.No.392 of
2022 was placed before the regular Court on 01.08.2022, the
trial Court after considering the arguments of both the
learned counsel directed both the parties to maintain status
quo without interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the petition schedule property till 25.08.2022.
6. Admittedly, a perusal of the docket order, dated
05.05.2023, would reveal that the Vacation Court specifically
directed the revision petitioner/plaintiff to file the case before
the regular Court, but instead of filing before the regular
Court, he hurriedly filed this C.R.P. Therefore, the Civil
Revision Petition itself is not maintainable and is devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE:26.06.2024
dgr
