Dismissed

St.Thomas Tamil Church SOCIETY.AND51 Oth. v. Church of S.I.T.Assoi.Madras.and 23 Others

Telangana HC3 Mar 2010CMA/34/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed civil miscellaneous appeals and cross objections regarding injunction applications. The court directed that the underlying suit be disposed of expeditiously without being influenced by the findings in these interlocutory proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed appeals/cross objections; directed trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

St.Thomas Tamil Church SOCIETY.AND51 Oth. Vs Church of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND

¶2

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶3

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.34 and 1135 of 2001 and CrossObjections (sr) No.9582 of 2001

¶4

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao)

¶5

Heard Mr.Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the appellants and also Mr.K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Since these two appeals are connected and arise out of a common order passed by the Court below, they are taken up together for disposal.

¶7

The appellant in C.M.A.No.34 of 2001 is the first defendant whereas the appellant in C.M.A.No.1135 of 2001 is the plaintiff. Both the parties are aggrieved against the orders passed in two different applications one in I.A.No.390 of 1997 in O.S.No.145 of 1997 which is for a mandatory injunction asking the respondents to pay the rents to which he claims to be entitled to whereas so far as the other application in I.A.No.389 of 1997 is concerned which is one seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 5 from claiming any right, title and interest in respect of the title of the suit schedule properties. Both the applications came to be disposed of whereby I.A.No.389 of 1997 was dismissed and in I.A.No.390 of 1997 a direction was given to the tenants to deposit the rents into the Court and any withdrawal thereof will be subject to the result.

¶8

When the matters have come up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that having regard to the scope of the applications and the relief as sought for which is far beyond the main suit itself, the Court below ought not to have entertained the applications.

¶9

However, both the learned counsel submit that as on this day, entire trial is over and it is coming up for documents and in fact, it is posted to tomorrow for further evidence and thereafter for arguments, and the connected writ petition is also disposed of by this Court.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid situation, we are of the view that having regard to the nature of the interlocutory proceedings, it is not proper for this Court to go into the merits and the claims set forth by both sides. Instead, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to direct the disposal of the suit itself as early as possible without being influenced by any of the observations or findings given in these proceedings. We are conscious of the submission made by the learned counsel Sri Bankatlal Mandhani on behalf of the appellant in C.M.A.No.34 of 2001 by placing reliance on Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi^[1] and Ravulapalli Pullaiah v. Shaik Nabi Saheb and other s^[2] reiterating the principles in regard to the approach to be made in an application of this nature. However, as already observed, since the main suit has come up for final stage, we do not go into the merits.

¶11

Accordingly, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Cross Objections (sr) No.9582 of 2001 are dismissed directing the Court below to expedite the matter and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by any of the findings given

¶12

herein.

¶13

_________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J

¶14

B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J 03^rd March, 2010

¶15

Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. B/o.

¶16

SKM

¶17

[1] AIR 2010 SC 475 [2] 2009 (5) ALD 316