Civil Revision Petition challenging the Civil Court's decision to proceed with a long-pending possession suit after the revenue appeal related to the Occupancy Rights Certificate was dismissed. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding the suit could proceed.
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.490 of 2008
ORDER:
The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No. 433 of 1987. The said suit was filed for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 09.04.1997, disposed of the suit directing appointment of a receiver to retain custody of the suit schedule property till the Joint Collector, before whom the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of the first respondent-plaintiff was pending, decided the matter.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-defendants preferred A.S.No.417 of 1997 and this Court, by its judgment dated 25.04.1997, allowed the appeal in part and remanded O.S.No. 433 of 1987 back to the Court of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District with a direction that the suit be kept pending till a final decision on Ex.A.1, (ORC issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer), was given by the Joint Collector. In its order, in A.S.No. 417 of 1997, this Court, while observing that the Trial Judge ought to have kept the suit pending till the fate of Ex.A.1 was decided by the Joint Collector, directed that, after receipt of the decision on Ex.A.1, both parties shall be heard and the matter shall be decided afresh.
Against the ORC issued to the first respondent-plaintiff, the petitioners-defendants herein had preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector who, by his order dated 23.10.1990, set aside the ORC and remanded the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East Division. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondentplaintiff filed W.P.No.1136 of 1991 and this Court, by its order
dated 12.02.1997, set aside the order of the Joint Collector dated 23.10.1990, and remanded the matter for his decision afresh on the question of limitation. On 30.06.2005, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal of the petitioners-defendants for default (non-prosecution). The petitioners-defendants filed a restoration application on 29.08.2005. On the ground that the Joint Collector, exercising powers under the statute, could not have dismissed their appeal for default, the petitioners-defendants filed W.P.No.3113 of 2006 and this Court, by its order dated 08.09.2006, directed the Joint Collector to take up the appeal.
While matters stood thus, the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in his order dated 23.01.2008, observed that, since there was no order of stay, the suit should be proceeded with. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition is filed wherein this Court, by its order dated 12.02.2008, granted interim stay.
It is necessary to note that, on the date on which interim stay was granted, the appeal filed by the petitioners-defendants was pending before the Joint Collector. Subsequently, on 04.10.2008, the Joint Collector disposed of the appeal confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting ORC in favour of the first respondent-plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the petitionersdefendants herein filed W.P.No.24040 of 2008 and this Court, by its order dated 28.01.2009, dismissed the writ petition. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners herein carried the matter in appeal to the Division Bench in W.A.No.402 of 2009, which is said to be still pending as on date.
Sri B.Venkatarama Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendants, would assert that the purport of the order of this Court, in A.S.No.417 of 1997 dated 25.04.1997, was that the suit should not be proceeded with till the ORC granted by the
Revenue Divisional Officer attained finality and, since the pendency of W.A.No. 402 of 2009 casts a cloud over the said ORC, the suit should not be proceeded with further. Learned Counsel would submit that the very basis of the respondentsplaintiffs claim for possession is that they are the owners of the property by virtue of the ORC granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and, since the entire claim of the respondents-plaintiffs, and that of the petitioners-defendants, is based on Ex.A.1 (ORC issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer), permitting the Trial Court to proceed with the suit, would cause irreparable injury to the petitioners-defendants herein for, even if they were to subsequently succeed in W.A.No.402 of 2009, they would be left remediless to seek possession of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.433 of 1987.
Sri P.Venugopal, Learned Counsel for the respondentsplaintiffs, would assert that the Court below was precluded by the order of this Court, in A.S.No.417 of 1997 dated 25.04.1997, from proceeding with the suit only till the Joint Collector disposed of the appeal preferred by the petitioners-defendants herein against the ORC granted in favour of first respondent-plaintiff and, in as much as the Joint Collector had dismissed the appeal by his order dated 04.10.2008, the order of this Court, in A.S.No.417 of 1997 dated 24.04.1997, did not preclude the Court below from proceeding with the suit and deciding the matter on merits.
As noted hereinabove this Court, in its order in A.S.No.417 of 1997 dated 25.04.1997, had directed the Court below to keep the suit pending till the appeal preferred by the petitionersdefendants before the Joint Collector was disposed of. As on 23.01.2008, when the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, chose to proceed with the matter, the appeal was pending before the Joint Collector in view of the order of this Court, in
W.P.No.3113 of 2006, dated 08.09.2006, directing the Joint Collector to hear and decide the appeal. The fact, however, remains that subsequently, on 04.10.2008, the appeal preferred by the petitioners-defendants was dismissed by the Joint Collector and, as such, no proceedings are pending before the Joint Collector.
The order of this Court, in A.S.No.417 of 1997, dated 25.04.1997, can neither be read as a statute nor can an inference be drawn therefrom that the suit should be kept pending till the ORC granted in favour of the first respondent-plaintiff attains finality. The judgment of a Court is binding only to the extent stated therein and not what follows logically therefrom. Since this Court had merely directed the suit to be kept pending till final orders were passed by the Joint Collector and, as the appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Joint Collector by his order dated 04.10.2008, there is no order, except the interim order in this C.R.P. which precludes the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, from deciding O.S.No.433 of 1987.
With regards the contention of Sri B.Venkatarama Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendants, that the Court below should be injuncted from proceeding with the suit till the ORC attains finality, it cannot be lost sight of that the suit is of the year 1987, and has been pending on the file of the Court below for the past 23 years. Accepting the submission of the Learned Counsel would mean that the
I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District cannot proceed with the suit even after W.A.No.402 of 2009 is decided, for either parties could then carry the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court, file a review petition against the order of the Supreme Court, and even a curative petition later. The Suit would have to be kept pending endlessly for a final adjudication on the
ORC.
I see no reason in injuncting the Court below, from hearing and deciding the suit, in exercise of the powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No patent illegality has been pointed out, by the Learned Counsel, in the order of the Court below deciding to proceed to hear the suit which has been pending on its board for nearly a quarter century. It is not as if the petitioner is remediless for even if the suit were to be decreed against him, he has the right of preferring an appeal thereagainst.
The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:17-06-2010 Usd/asp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Court can proceed with the suit after the appeal regarding the Occupancy Rights Certificate was dismissed by the Joint Collector.
Whether the suit must be kept pending till the ORC attains finality including potential appeals to the Supreme Court.
Whether there is patent illegality in proceeding with the suit under Article 227.
PETITIONERS - DEFENDANTS
FIRST RESPONDENT - PLAINTIFF
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
