The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an injunction order. The court held that the order preserved the subject matter without prejudice and no interference was called for.
The civil revision petition stands dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3269 of 2012
BETWEEN
M/s. Sree And Sree Developers.
... PETITIONER
AND
Ganta Prasada Rao and others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A.S.C. BOSE
Counsel for the Respondents: MR. SREMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Respondent No.5 in O.P.No.1196 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam is aggrieved by the order of injunction dated 27.04.2012 in I.A.No.2225 of 2010 directing the respondents not to alienate the property to any third party till disposal of the main OP.
2. It appears that the OP was filed under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 claiming various reliefs. The first respondent/society in the OP was formed by the recognized agents
of RTA and it is alleged that the erstwhile office bearers have unauthorizedly sold the land of the society to the fifth respondent/petitioner herein. The main relief sought in the OP is to conduct enquiry and dissolve the then executive body and for ancillary reliefs including to declare the sale made by respondents 2 and 3 in favour of respondents 5 and 6 as illegal. Pending the OP,
an application I.A.No.2225 of 2010 was moved seeking to restrain further alienations. The Court below under the impugned order has heard the parties, considered their prima facie case and granted injunction.
3. The fifth respondent in the OP, however, questions the impugned order on the ground that in the said application originally made before the Court below, the first respondent was not shown as party respondent and the injunction was sought only against the fifth respondent in the OP.
4. However, the certified copy of the order of the Court below shows that the society is the first respondent and other respondents are also arrayed, as shown in the OP. In any case, the learned District Judge heard all the respondents before passing the said order.
Apart from that, the order restraining alienation only preserves the property, which is subject matter of the OP, in the same state and cannot be said to prejudice any of the respondents. Since the OP is already two years old and the pleadings are said to be completed,
no interference of the impugned order is called for.
Consequently, the civil revision petition stands dismissed.
The learned District Judge shall further endeavour to hear and dispose of the OP, expeditiously and in any case, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
November 5, 2012 DSK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interference in the impugned order granting injunction is called for since the original application did not name the first respondent as a party.
M/s. Sree And Sree Developers
Ganta Prasada Rao and others
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
