Telangana High Court
Smt.Vattipalli Mangamma vs Maila Somaiah on 1 May, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3968 OF 2024
Between:
Smt. Vattipalli Mangamma
... Petitioner
And
Sri Maila Somaiah and Others.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 01.05.2025
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes.
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
________________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3968 OF 2024
% 01.05.2025
Between:
# Smt. Vattipalli Mangamma
... Petitioner
And
$ Sri Maila Somaiah and Others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Mohd.Abdul Ismail
Zabeullah
^Counsel for Respondents: Sri Bondempally Ramulu
? Cases Referred:
3
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.3968 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri Mohd.Abdul Ismail Zabeullah, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri
Bondempally Ramulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents.
2. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking
prayer as under:
"...to allow the CRP by setting aside the order dt 21.
10.202 passed in IA No. 431 of 2024 in OS No. 29 of 2024
on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon and
pass..."
PERUSED THE RECORD:-
3. This civil Revision Petition is preferred against the
docket order dated 21.10.2024 in IA No.431 of 2024 in OS
No. 29 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at
Jangaon whereunder the court after perusing the record
ordered urgent notice to the Respondents No.3/
Defendant No.3 on the petition filed by the plaintiff under
order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking grant of temporary
injunction against the Respondent No.3/ Defendant No 3.
4. As can be seen from the petition IA No.431 of 2024 in
OS No. 29 of 2024 the plea of the Petitioner/Plaintiff is
that the respondents 1 and 2 are her parents and the suit
schedule properties are joint family properties and OS No.
71 of 2012 was filed for partition of the properties and the
said suit was disposed off by the court of the Hon'ble
Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon and she had 1/5th of the
share in the properties and that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2
sold the suit property under an agreement of sale to
Respondent No.3 who filed the OS No. 200 of 2012 for
specific performance of the Agreement of Sale and the
suit was decreed and sale deed 30.09.2024 was executed
through process of the court but possession of the
property was not delivered to Respondent No 3 and that
the sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No.3 is
null and void and not binding on her and that therefore
she is entitled for grant of temporary injunction against
the Respondent No.3 for making construction on the land
and from alienating the land to others.
5. The lower court as can be seen from the impugned
docket order after perusing the record ordered urgent
notice to the respondent.
As per order 39 Rule 1, clauses 'a' to 'c' deal with the
cases in which court may grant temporary injunction. But
as per sub-rule '3' of order 39 issuance of the notice to
the respondent before grant of injunction in all cases is
mandatory unless the court is of the opinion that the
object of granting injunction would be defeated on
account of delay by issuance of notice to the opposite
party.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
6. In the present case the lower court after per using the
record ordered urgent notice to the respondent which
inferentially shows that the court felt that the case of the
petitioner/plaintiff did not deserve grant of ad-interim
injunction, therefore the lower court did not commit any
illegality or procedural irregularity in passing the
impugned order. Apart from this, the impugned order,
ordering the notice to the respondent without grant of
temporary injunction is appealable under order XLIII Rule
1 clause (r) CPC and so the petitioner ought to have
preferred civil miscellaneous appeal to the district court
instead of rushing this court by way of present CRP. The
judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner do
not apply to the facts of the present case. For the
following reasons the present Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date:01.05.2025
Note: L.R.Copy to be marked
(B/o) ktm
