The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a plaintiff against the dismissal of an interim injunction application. The Court held the appeal to be infructuous because an injunction was already subsisting by this Court at the time of the appeal.
Appeal dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.996 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 43 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., is directed against the order dated 03.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.1416 of 2006 in O.S.No.1699 of 2006 on the file of the learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the petition filed by the plaintiff, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit for partition, was dismissed.
Appellant is the plaintiff. Respondents are the defendants. The appellant laid a suit in O.S.No.1699 of 2006 on the file of the learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the appellant/plaintiff also filed the present I.A.No.1416 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from alienating the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent filed counter resisting the said I.A. The Court below, after hearing both sides, by elaborate order dated 29.09.2006 dismissed the application with costs and consequently the ex parte ad-interim injunction granted on 29.09.2006 was vacated. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed.
There is no necessity of going into all the details.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present I.A. was disposed of without hearing the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff before the Court below. He also submitted that after dismissal
of the present I.A. and before the interim injunction restraining the respondents 8 and 9, their agents, servants and henchmen from alienating the suit schedule property was granted by this Court on 24.09.2009, the respondents have sold out the suit schedule property to some third parties and, at present, the suit schedule property is in possession of the third parties. In fact, being aggrieved by such sale, the appellant filed a suit, seeking cancellation of the sale deed alleged to have been executed in favour of third parties and also injunction not to alienate the suit schedule property, and obtained injunction which is still subsisting as on today.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the present I.A. was disposed of without hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff before the Court below cannot be accepted, as a perusal of the cause title of the impugned I.A. clearly indicates the presence of the counsel for the plaintiff. Further, in view of the other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that injunction in respect of the suit schedule property is subsisting as on today, the appeal has become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
_____________ C.V.RAMULU,J
01.07.2010 v v
Appellant
Respondents
C. V. RAMULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
