Telangana High Court
Yedipala Pitchi Reddy vs Gudipati Hanumantha Rao on 3 May, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.18 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated
30.06.2023 in I.A.No.165 of 2023 in I.A.No.238 of 2018 in
O.S.No.13 of 2018, passed by the learned V - Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.
2. Initially, respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.13
of 2018 against the appellants/defendants for specific
performance of contract and obtained Status-quo order in
I.A.No.238 of 2018 dated 16.07.2018, against which appellants
have filed an application in I.A.No.165 of 2023, seeking to
vacate the Status-quo order dated 16.07.2018, but the said
application was dismissed by the trial Court by Order dated
30.06.2023. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner preferred
the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants mainly contended
that respondent herein had filed I.A.No.594 of 2019 under
Order 6 rule 17 to amend the plaint prayer by adding para 5(a),
which reads as follows:
"The defendants forcefully occupied the suit
schedule rice mill on 01.08.2018 and deprived the
plaintiff's income. The defendants are liable to deliver
the possession of the petition schedule rice mill and
pay mesne profits till the delivery of possession."
The respondent/plaintiff had also filed I.A.No.593 of 2019 under
Order 6 rule 17, requesting the Court to amend the plaint.
Accordingly, para 1(a) was also included, which reads as
follows:
"The defendants may be directed to deliver the
possession of the petition schedule rice mill to the
plaintiff and pass such orders as this Court deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice."
In view of the amendments of the plaint, appellants contended
that respondent is not in possession of the suit schedule
property and thus requested the Court to vacate the Status-quo
granted by the trial Court. Therefore, requested the Court to set
aside the Order of the trial Court.
4. The appellants/defendants are running a rice mill and the
Chartered Accountant of the appellants had filed the suit in
O.S.No.13 of 2018, for specific performance of agreement of
sale. Respondent contended that he purchased the suit
scheduled property from the appellants/defendants and paid
the entire sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- to appellants
and thus requested the Court for refund of Rs.50,00,000/-, if
the Court refused to grant a decree of specific performance.
5. Initially, respondent stated that rice mill is in his
possession and appellants may sell away the property during
the pendency of the proceedings, as such the trial Court granted
the Order of Status-quo. However, appellants contended that in
view of the amendments sought for by the respondent, it is clear
that appellants are in possession of the suit schedule property,
they are the owners of the rice mill, respondent is only the
Chartered Accountant and he was involving into their business
affairs and causing much loss, as such requested this Court to
vacate the Status-quo Orders. Appellants also relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pooja Mittal
Vs.Rakesh Kumar and others, in which it was held as follows:
"In our opinion, the High Court committed manifest
error in directing the parties to maintain status quo
despite the fact that no prima facie case was made out
by the plaintiffs for grant of such relief.
As the suit is still pending between the parties, we
refrain from making any further observation lest it would
affect eh plea available to the concerned parties before
the trial Court in the pending suit.
Suffice it to observe that the impugned order
directing the parties to maintain status quo cannot be
sustained in the fact situation of the present case. The
same is set aside. However, at the same time, it is made
clear that any action/step taken by the appellant in
respect of the suit property will be subject to the outcome
of the suit pending before the trial Court."
6. Considering the arguments of the appellants Counsel, in
view of the amendment sought for by the respondent, this Court
finds that it is just and reasonable to vacate the Status-quo
Order dated 16.07.2018, passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.238
of 2018.
7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed,
setting aside the Order of the trial Court dated 30.06.2023
passed in I.A.No.165 of 2023 in I.A.No.238 of 2018 in O.S.No.13
of 2018. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 03.05.2024
tri
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.18 of 2024
DATE: 03.05.2024
TRI
