Telangana High Court
Mr. Bonthu Guruvareddy, vs Mr. Lachireddy Poornachand, on 24 February, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.455 and 456 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy)
Since the issue in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals is one
and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.
2. Heard Mr. D.V. Sitaram Murthy, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of Mr. Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for
the appellants, and Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for
the respondents.
3. These are two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the appellants
challenging the common order dated 31.07.2024 in I.A.Nos.552 and
553 of 2024 in O.S.No.110 of 2023, passed by the IV Additional
District Judge, Sangareddy.
4. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents
herein are the defendants before the Trial Court. For the sake of
facility, the parties are hereinafter referred to with their rank before
the Trial Court.
5. Vide the impugned common order, the Trial Court has allowed
the petitions filed by defendant No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') i.e. I.A.Nos.552 & 553 of
2024. As a consequence, the interim injunction order of status quo
passed on 19.05.2023 by the then Vacation Court was set aside. It is
this vacation of the interim injunction granted on 19.05.2023 of which
the plaintiffs are aggrieved of; leading to filing of the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals.
6. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the two Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals are that the plaintiffs filed an original suit for
declaration of title and for cancellation of few sale deeds along with the
prayer for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule A, B and
C properties. Along with the suit, I.A.Nos.269 & 270 of 2023 were filed
seeking for injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or
creating third party interest in the suit schedule property. The prayer
was also seeking a restraint order against the defendants from
interfering with their possession in respect of the suit schedule
properties.
7. While addressing the Court so far as grant of temporary
injunction is concerned, the plaintiffs made a statement before the
Trial Court that in another suit in respect of the same property, there
is already an order of status quo in force granted by the concerned
Court and therefore prayed for grant of injunction so far as maintaining
status quo in the instant original suit as well. The Trial Court, vide
order dated 19.05.2023 believing the contention of the learned counsel
for the plaintiffs of there being another injunction order already in
force in another connected suit, was pleased to grant the order of
status quo. Subsequently, defendant No.1 filed two Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC before the High Court
challenging the order dated 19.05.2023. The High Court initially was
pleased to suspend the order of status quo granted by the Trial Court
on 19.05.2023; however the defendant No.1 withdrew the said Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals with a liberty to agitate his rights before the
Trial Court itself. After withdrawal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal,
the plaintiffs again approached the Trial Court and got the earlier order
dated 19.05.2023 restored whereby the status quo was granted, vide
order dated 01.04.2024.
8. It is at this juncture that the two Interlocutory Applications i.e.
I.A.Nos.552 and 553 of 2024 were filed by defendant No.1 under Order
XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for setting aside the interim injunction order
granted on 19.05.2023. Being a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of
CPC, it was the contention of defendant No.1 who had filed the said
petitions that the interim order of injunction was obtained by material
misrepresentation and suppression of facts, and therefore, the
injunction order of status quo obtained by misrepresentation is liable
to be set aside.
9. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court vide the impugned
common order had allowed the two Interlocutory Applications
accepting the contention of defendant No.1 that there was material
misrepresentation made by the plaintiffs while obtaining the injunction
order dated 19.05.2023 from the then Vacation Court and accordingly
set aside the same.
10. The point for consideration before this Court is "whether there
was sufficient material made available before the Trial Court for
accepting the defendant No.1's petition under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of
CPC for setting aside the interim injunction order dated 19.05.2023?"
11. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Trial
Court failed to appreciate the fact that defendant No.1 himself had
challenged the order dated 01.04.2024 restoring the earlier injunction
order dated 19.05.2023 vide Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.235 and
236 of 2024 and both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stood
dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated
30.04.2024. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to
have further considered the petitions filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of
CPC once when the order has been subjected to challenge and have
got the seal of affirmation from the High Court.
12. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the Trial Court also failed to appreciate the fact that the
order of the High Court dismissing the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals
was also subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
S.L.P.(C) Nos.12103-12104 of 2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
also dismissed these S.L.Ps. vide order dated 27.05.2024 directing the
Trial Court to decide the application filed for temporary injunction
within a period of six (06) weeks after affording opportunity of hearing
to the parties. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the
appellants, the defendant No.1 was not able to make out a strong case
even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court calling for an interference to
the order of status quo granted by the Trial Court.
13. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the
defendant No.1 in fact had no claim whatsoever over the suit schedule
property and that the very claim raised over the suit schedule property
relying upon an Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) that was issued in
the year 1982, is clearly barred by limitation and the suit filed by the
defendants i.e. O.S.No.51 of 2020 is liable to be rejected on this
ground alone. Ignoring this fact, the Trial Court has vacated the
interim protection granted earlier.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that
the impugned common order under challenge in the two Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals are those which have been passed exercising
the powers conferred upon the Trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of
CPC. A bare perusal of the impugned common order would clearly
reflect that the Trial Court had threadbare considered the petitions
filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC and the entire factual gambit of
the case and then found that the interim injunction obtained by the
plaintiffs at the first instance on 19.05.2023 was with material
misrepresentation.
15. Referring to the interim injunction order dated 19.05.2023, the
learned counsel for the respondents contended that reading of the said
order itself would show that the plaintiffs in the course of their
submissions on the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC made an
incorrect statement that there was already an order of status quo
granted in the connected suit i.e. O.S.No.51 of 2020. Therefore, a
similar order of status quo was sought for in the instant suit and which
was granted by the Trial Court believing the statement made of an
order of status quo already having been passed in the connected suit
pertaining to the same suit schedule property.
16. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, when it
was found that there was misrepresentation made and the interim
injunction having been obtained by making an incorrect and false
statement; the finding arrived at by the Trial Court in the impugned
common order cannot be found fault with, nor can it be said to be in
any manner contrary to law or for that matter contrary to facts. Thus,
prayed for dismissal of the instant two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
17. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on
perusal of records, what is firstly to be appreciated is that the instant
two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are one which have been filed under
the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC and since these are
appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC, the power vested upon
this Court is confined to the provisions under which the two
Interlocutory Applications were filed and the impugned common order
being passed on these Interlocutory Applications. In other words, in
the course of exercising powers under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC,
this Bench would have to only look into the correctness of the order
passed by the Trial Court testing it within the framework of the
provisions under which two Interlocutory Applications were filed; which
in the instant cases are petitions under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC.
18. Undisputedly, there was an order of injunction granted by the
Trial Court vide order dated 19.05.2023 on a petition filed under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC i.e. an order
directing to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule
property. Though the order dated 19.05.2023 was put to challenge by
way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.255 and 256 of 2023 and there
was also an order staying effect and operation of the order dated
19.05.2023, however, subsequently the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals got
disposed vide order dated 07.02.2024 granting liberty to pursue the
remedies before the Trial Court itself. Meanwhile, after the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals stood disposed of by the High Court, the Trial
Court restored the interim injunction order dated 19.05.2023 vide a
fresh order dated 01.04.2024. This order was tested both before the
High Court as also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the details of
which are referred in the earlier paragraphs. Before both the Courts,
defendant No.1 did not get any success and he was permitted to
agitate the case before the Trial Court itself.
19. The rejection of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before the High
Court as also the dismissal of the S.L.Ps. before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court prima facie goes to show that defendant No.1 did not impress
upon the two Courts so far as the illegality or perversity in the order
dated 19.05.2023 or for that matter in the order dated 01.04.2024. It
was thereafter that the Interlocutory Applications were filed under
Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC before the Trial Court highlighting the
aspect of misrepresentation.
20. What is necessary to be appreciated is that before the
Interlocutory Applications under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC were filed,
the order of injunction dated 19.05.2023 and 01.04.2024 were already
subjected to challenge before the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, but neither of the two Courts could find any error with the
aforesaid order of the Trial Court. In the said circumstances, was it
justified for the Trial Court to have subjected the order dated
19.05.2023 to be re-tested now invoking the provisions under Order
XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC.
21. The grounds raised in the said Interlocutory Applications were
already available with the defendant No.1 at the first instance itself
when he subjected these orders firstly before the High Court and
secondly before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Another point to be
considered is since the order dated 19.05.2023 and subsequently the
order dated 01.04.2023 were honored and the parties in between had
maintained status quo, was it really necessary for the Trial Court to
have vacated the injunction order passed so long ago. Another aspect
which is reflected from the proceedings and the pleadings available in
the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals is that the admitted disputes on
the suit schedule property between the plaintiffs and the defendants of
their being already a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2020 having been filed,
coupled with fact that in the past there has been multiple sale of the
suit schedule property or part of the suit schedule property to multiple
persons. In the teeth of all these developments and the multiple sale
of the suit schedule property of part of the suit schedule property
having taken place to avoid further damage to the suit schedule
property, so also to avoid further complications, the Trial Court ought
not to have vacated the interim injunction where the interim order was
only to the extent of directing the parties to maintain status quo.
22. In the opinion of this Bench, for the reasons stated in the
preceding paragraphs, particularly the series of litigations that took
place post 19.05.2023 be it either by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
or by way of S.L.Ps., or by way of yet another petition before the Trial
Court etc. etc., this Court is of the firm view that the order of status
quo granted by the Trial Court was the most innocuous order which
would cause any prejudice to either of the parties so far as the title
and possession of the suit schedule property is concerned. Though
there does seem to be some material available to show that there was
in fact some misrepresentation made by the plaintiffs in the course of
obtaining the interim injunction on 19.05.2023; but considering the
subsequent developments that have transpired between the parties,
firstly at the High Court level and secondly at the Hon'ble Supreme
Court level, we are of the firm view that the Trial Court ought not to
have vacated the interim injunction and should have rather proceeded
to decide the suit at the earliest.
23. For the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Bench
is of the firm view that the impugned common order passed by the
Trial Court dated 31.07.2024 is arbitrary and also bad in law for the
reason that the order dated 19.05.2023 was already subjected to
challenge before the High Court as also before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court with no success to the defendants. Accordingly, we allow the
instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeals to the extent of directing both the
parties i.e. the plaintiffs as also the defendants to maintain status quo
so far as the suit schedule property is concerned. However, the Trial
Court is directed to proceed further with the suit and conclude the
same as expeditiously as possible without any further unnecessary
adjournments and delays.
24. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
_____________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_____________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 24.02.2025
GSD
