Dismissed

M/S Pch Life Style Private Limited v. Penumatsa Rama Subrahmanyam Raju

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Dec 2023CRP/3013/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of an interim application in a property suit. The bench held that granting the return of keys as an interim measure would practically grant the final relief of possession, which is impermissible at the interlocutory stage.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand closed.

M/S Pch Life Style Private Limited Vs Penumatsa… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3013 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dt.29-08-2023 passed in I.A.No.510 of 2023 in O.S.No.49 of 2022 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/s Pch Ufe Style Private Limited, Danavaipeta Branch, Rajamahendravaram represented by Rayala Ramarao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, 43 years, D. No.2-18 Kandimallavari Bazar, Penuballi Mandal, Telagavaram, Khammam District! Telangana State, Power of Attorney Holder of Plaintiff Company, having its S<S®?uda''Hyderatad

¶9

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶10

AND

¶11

Penumatsa Rama Subrahmanyam Raju. S/o. Appala Raju, Hindu, aged 47 Vfeakhapl& otfrTct ^

¶12

Appala Reddy, Hindu, aged 52 years

¶13

D. No.50-1-45/11, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶14

...Respondents/Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:- SRI. M.A. MUJEEB

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶17

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶19

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3013 OF 2023

¶20

JUDGMENT:-

¶21

¶22

Heard Sri M. A. Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioner who appears through virtual mode.

¶23

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2022. The suit is filed against the defendants for the following prayer:-

¶24

“Praxer:-

¶25

The Plaintiff, therefore, prays that the Hon hie Court

¶26

may be pleased to pass a decree in his favour and against the defendants - 1. Grant mandatory injunction directing the defendants to re-deliver the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff;

¶27

1. Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule leasehold premises till the plaintiff is evicted by due process of law;

¶28

1. Pass a decree directing the defendants to pay damages at Rs. 1,60,000/- from 20.06.2022 till the date of re-delivery of the property to the plaintiff;

¶29

1. Pass a decree for Rs.85,00,000/- which is the cost of the clothes illegally detained by the defendants, with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization;

¶30

1. Award costs of the suit; 6. Grant such other reliefs as the Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶31

In the said suit the plaintiff/petitioner filed I.A.No.510 of 2023. The prayer of the said I.A. reads^asunder:-

¶32

'iif

¶33

¶34

“This application is filed under Section 151 CPC seeking to return to the plaintiff the keys of the lock fastened^to the suit schedule property and order to enable him to open the shop and clear of insects, termites and fungus which damaged the clothes in the shop and enable the petitioner/plaintiff to make the shop worthy of doing business.”

¶35

I.A.No.510 of 2023 has been rejected by the learned V Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Challenging the said order, the present petition under Article²²⁷ of the Constitution of India has been filed.

¶36

The learned Court after framing the point for consideration as to “whether the petitioner can be permitted to clear the leasehold premises for the purpose of making its business worthy by handing over the keys of the lock^fastened of the lease hold premises to him?”, rejected the petition by observing that the relief sought in the application cannot be granted at this stage. Learned Court observed that handing over the keys to the petitioner for the purpose of making its business worthy amounts to handing over the premises^tohim during the pendency of the suit when continuation of tenancy itself was in issue. This amounts to granting the main^reliefin the suit which is impermissible in law. The learned^Courtalso

'w-

placed reliance in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh^and

¶41

others vs. Ram Sukhi DevP.

¶42

In the case of Ram Sukhi Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down that interlocutory orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition cannot be granted at the interim stage. Paragraph No.8^ofRam Sukhi Devi (supra) reads as under;-

¶43

To say the least, approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is judicially unsustainable and indefensible. The final relief sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an interim measure. There was no reason indicated by learned Single Judge as to why the Government Order dated 26.10.1998 was to be ignored. Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at^thetime of final disposal of the writ petition. This Court^hason numerous occasions observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable Government Order has to be ignored. Time and again this Court^has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders^which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima facie case^has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host^of other considerations. [See CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 260] (SCC^at p. 265), State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties [(1985 (3) SCC 217] (SCC at p.224). State of U.P. v. Visheshwar [(1995 Supp (3) SCC 590], Bharatbhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar (Dr.) v. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa [(1995 Supp (2) SCC 593], Shiv Shankar v. Board of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr [(1995 Supp (2) SCC 726] and Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Health and Medical Education Department Civil Sectt., v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli [(1995 Supp (4) SCC 214] ”

¶44

(2005) 9 SCC 733

¶45

¶46

The relief as prayed in the I.A. is virtually the final relief in the suit and if LA is allowed that would amount to decreeing the suit as the interlocutory stage.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Para⁵ of the impugned order to submit that “the respondent No.l submitted that he has no objection if the petitioner takes away the stock from the leasehold premises and deposit the keys in the Court”. Based thereon he submits that the respondent^No.l has also no objection to the petitioner's I.A.

¶48

I am not convinced with the submission advanced that the respondent No. 1 had no objection to the relief prayed in the l.A. The only thing that follows from the aforesaid^Paraas pointed out by the petitioner's counsel is, that the respondent No.l had no objection if the petitioner takes away^stockfrom the leasehold premises and depositing the keys in the^Court.

¶49

The prayer of the petition in l.A. is not for taking out the stock from the leasehold premises and handing^overthe keys back to the Court, but is entirely different. The respondent No.l’s submission, as pointed out to this Court cannot^beread with respect to the prayer in the l.A that respondent^No.lhad no objection. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived.

¶50

¶51

Consequently, based on the aforesaid submission of

¶52

the learned counsel for the petitioner, no case is made outⁱⁿ

¶53

the petitioner's favour to allow the application.

¶54

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the order under challenge.

¶55

No case for interference is made out under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶56

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

¶58

shall also stand closed.

¶59

¶60

//TRUE COPY//

¶61

SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶62

¶63

SECTION OFFICER

¶64

To, 1. The V Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. 2. One CC to Sri. M.A.Mujeeb, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh^at Amaravati. 4. Three C.D Copies. SSL VNA

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/12/2023

ORDER

CRP.NO.3013 OF 2023

DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

M/S Pch Life Style Private Limited v. Penumatsa Rama Subrahmanyam Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pch Life Style Private Limited v. Penumatsa Rama Subrahmanyam Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nainalasetti Veeraswami Vs The District Collector

Bikkina Venkata Ramakrishna Chowdary (Died) Vs Rimmalapudi Satya Surya Kumari

Mula Viswanadham, Vizianagaram Vs Jt. Collector, Vizianagaram and 6 Ot

Kothhapalli Savitri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalimkota Kannyamma Vs Adduri Veera Venkata Satyanarayanaraju

Pothula Srinivasarao Vs Bokka Venkata Ramadevi