The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition aggregating against an appellate order that quashed a temporary injunction in a lease dispute. The Court found no jurisdictional error as the appellate court correctly held the alleged sub-lease agreement was unregistered and inadmissible.
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 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
C.R.P.No.2415 of 2010
Date : 19-1-2012
Between: M.A. Jhangir s/o. M.A. Khader .. Petitioner And Javeed Parvaz s/o. Mohd. Abudl Razak .. Respondent
Counsel for petitioner : None appeared Counsel for respondent : Sri V. Ramachander Goud
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 1- 6-2010 in C.M.A.No.9/2010 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby she has reversed order dated 2-2-2010 in I.A.No.780/2009 in O.S.No.600/2009 of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
A perusal of the proceedings sheet shows that the case has undergone as many as twelve adjournments, either at the request or on account of non-appearance of the counsel for the parties. Even today, there has been no representation for the petitioner both in the forenoon and again in the afternoon.
I have heard Sri V. Ramachander Goud, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.600/2009 filed for permanent injunction against the respondent. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that under agreement dated 18-7-1979, he has obtained sub-lease from the respondent who is the lessee of the suit schedule premises. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that the sub-lease was
granted in his favour by the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.7500/- and on deposit of Rs.5 lakhs. The petitioner further pleaded that he is running M/s. New City Walk Footwear in the suit schedule premises and that as per the agreement between him and the respondent, the tenancy was extended for a period of three years from 1-8-2008. When the respondent sought to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the suit schedule premises, the latter has filed the suit. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.780/2009 for temporary injunction. The learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, by order dated 2-2-2010, granted injunction. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of injunction, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.9/2010 before the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. On a consideration of the pleadings and the documentary evidence, the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set-aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
I have carefully considered the reasons given by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has taken into consideration the fact that Ex.P-3, which is the purported agreement under which the petitioner has claimed sub-tenancy for a period of three years, is inadmissible in evidence as the same required registration. The lower
appellate Court also held that the licence granted for running M/s. New City Walk Footwear is not in the name of the petitioner and that the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner does not prove his case that he is the sub-lessee having right to be in possession of the suit schedule premises. On a careful scrutiny of the reasons given by the lower appellate Court, I am of the opinion that the same do not suffer from any jurisdictional error calling for interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
One other crucial aspect which needs to be taken note of is that even according to the petitioner, the lease last extended was valid till 1-8-2011. Even accepting the petitioner’s case as pleaded by him, he has no right to restrain the respondent from interfering with his possession after 1-8-2011.
For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.3227/2010 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 19-1-2012
AM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside the appellate order dismissing the injunction suit is maintainable.
Whether the appellate order relies on admissible evidence and within its jurisdiction.
M.A. Jhangir
Javeed Parvaz
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
