Allowed

M/s. P.V.S. Industries, Hospet, Rep. by its v. Kurmapu Gopalakrishna

Telangana HC22 Sept 2011CRP/3139/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three civil revision petitions filed by defendants against orders granting plaintiffs possession of a pledged Proclainer. The Court permitted the second defendant to furnish a fresh bank guarantee within four weeks to retain custody.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; petitioner permitted to furnish fresh bank guarantee within four weeks.

M/s. P.V.S. Industries, Hospet, Rep. by its Vs Kurmapu… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3068 of 2011, 3139 of 2011

3140 of 2011

Dated 22-9-2011

C.R.P.No.3068 of 2011: Between:

¶6

K.R.Sudhakar and another.

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

And:

¶9

Gangadharan Nair.

¶10

… Respondent. C.R.P.No.3139 of 2011: Between: M/s. P.V.S.Industries, Hospet, represented by its Partner P.G.Ravindranath.

¶11

..Petitioner.

¶12

And:

¶13

Kurmapu Gopalakrishna and another.

¶14

… Respondents. C.R.P.No.3140 of 2011: Between:

¶15

K.R.Sudhakar and another.

¶16

..Petitioners.

¶17

And:

¶18

K. Gopalakrishna.

¶19

… Respondent.

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3068 of 2011, 3139 of 2011

3140 of 2011

COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.3068 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the common order dated 26.7.2011 passed in I.A.No.190 of 2010 in O.S.No.7 of

¶25

2004 by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-Additional District Court, Srikakulam.

¶26

C.R.P.No.3139 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the common order dated 26.7.2011 passed in I.A.No.20 of 2011 in O.S.No.7 of 2004 by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-Additional District Court, Srikakulam.

¶27

C.R.P.No.3140 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.2011 passed in I.A.No.89 of 2011 in O.S.No.7 of 2004 by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-Additional District Court, Srikakulam.

¶28

Petitioners in these three C.R.P.s. are defendants and respondents in these three C.R.Ps. are plaintiffs before the Court below. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit before the Court below for the sake of convenience.

¶29

Since the parties and the issue involved in these three C.R.Ps. are one and the same, they are disposed of by way of a common order.

¶30

Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the 1^st defendant only and along with the said suit I.A.No.1228 of 2004 for temporary injunction and coming to know about the same, the 2^nd defendant filed I.A.No.1553 of 2004 to implead him as a party. Thereupon the 2^nd defendant filed I.A.No.4287 of 2004 for interim custody of the proclainier, which is the suit schedule property and on 9.2.2005 the said proclainer is ordered to be given as interim custody to the 2^nd defendant on condition of giving bank guarantee for Rs.18,60,000/- on or before 14.2.2005.

¶31

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.190 of 2010 to direct the 2^nd respondent to hand over possession of the proclainer to him. Then second defendant filed I.A.No.20 of 2011 to permit him to furnish a fresh bank guarantee forRs.18,60,000/- as per the orders in I.A.No.4287 of 2004 referred to above.

¶32

Subsequently, a Petition in I.A.No.89 of 2011 is filed by the plaintiff to appoint an advocate Commissioner to handover physical possession of the suit schedule proclainer to him from the possession of the 2^nd defendant.

¶33

The Court below allowed the petitions I.A.No.190 of 2010 and 89 of 2011 and dismissed the petition I.A.No.20 of 2011. Aggrieved by which, the present three Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the defendants. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶34

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the 2^nd defendant can be given an opportunity for furnishing a fresh bank guarantee.?

¶35

The 2^nd defendant claiming to be the owner of the proclainer got himself impleaded as 2^nd defendant to the original suit in O.S.No.7 of 2004 and filed I.A.No.4287 of 2004 for interim custody of proclainer.

¶36

The interim custody of the proclainer was ordered to him on 9.2.2005 on condition of giving bank guarantee for Rs.18,60,000/-on or before 14.2.2005. Then the 2^nd defendant furnished bank guarantee and the proclainer was handed over to him through an advocate commissioner. However, Branch Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Hospet has sent a letter to return the original bank guarantee dated 11-02-2005 on the ground that the guarantee was expired by 11.2.2006 itself. Admittedly, the 2^nd defendant did not renew or offer fresh bank guarantee. Then, he sought time for furnishing fresh bank guarantee. Then the plaintiff filed petition in I.A.No.89 of 2011 to appoint an advocate commissioner to handover physical possession of the suit schedule proclainer to him from the possession of 2^nd defendant. Then the lower Court having observed that in spite of giving opportunity, the 2^nd defendant failed to furnish the bank guarantee, dismissed the I.A.No.20 of 2011 filed by the 2^nd defendant and allowed petitions in I.A.No.190 of 2010 and 89 of 2011.

¶37

It is not in dispute that considering the rival contentions, the lower court already passed orders on

¶38

previous occasion permitting the 2^nd defendant to furnish 2^nd bank guarantee and accordingly, the defendant has furnished bank guarantee. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the said orders, proclainer has been handed over to him. It appears that he did not observe that the Bank gaurantee was only for one year period and did not take fresh bank guarantee. It appears that it may not be just and reasonable to deprive the right of the2nd defendant to have the custody of proclainer pending disposal of the suit.

¶39

In the above circumstances, the petitioner/2^nd defendant is permitted to furnish the fresh bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.18,60,000/- within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the orders passed in I.A.No.190 of 2010 and 89 of 2011 will be in force.

¶40

Accordingly, these C.R.Ps. are allowed and consequently, the impugned order is set aside.

¶41

_____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶42

Date: 22-09-2011 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. BO. Dvs

¶43

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶44

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3068 of 2011, 3139 of 2011

¶45

¶46

3140 of 2011

¶47

Dated 22-9-2011

M/s. P.V.S. Industries, Hospet, Rep. by its v. Kurmapu Gopalakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. P.V.S. Industries, Hospet, Rep. by its v. Kurmapu Gopalakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Rangadham Vs Ch. v. Nandikeswara Rao

B.Yalamanda Rao Vs The Manger

Majji Vijaya Kumar Vs Jeeru Rama Rao

K.R. Sudhakar Vs K. Gopalakrishna

K.R.Sudhakar Vs K.Gopalakrishna

Korada Sri Krishna Murthy Vs Golivi Mallesu