Allowed

Theme Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohd. Suleman , Goremiya

Telangana HC25 Apr 2013CMA/272/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an injunction order restraining appellants from continuing construction on disputed properties. The court held that an injunction to stop ongoing substantial construction does not fit the purport of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order while directing appellants not to commence fresh work.

What did the court decide?

The order under appeal set aside the injunction restraining construction. Appellants directed not to commence fresh constructions but allowed to complete those already in progress.

Theme Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohd. Suleman , Goremiya — Partition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY &

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶3

C.M.A.No.272 OF 2013

¶4

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice LNR,J)

¶5

Respondents 1 to 19 filed O.S.No.454 of 2008 in the Court of the III-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, against appellants and respondents 20 to 73 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and allotment of one-eight share to them along with defendants 31 and 32.

¶6

Along with the suit, they have also filed I.A.No.1942 of 2008, which came to be re-numbered as I.A.No.199 of 2010, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC with a prayer to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property and creating third party rights. An ad-interim order of status quo was passed and the same was in force.

¶7

Respondents 1 to 19 filed I.A.No.1187 of 2012 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC with a prayer to restrain the appellants herein i.e., defendants 34, 35 and 43 from continuing the construction work undertaken by them in the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. It was mentioned that though they intended to get the relief and instructed their counsel, they were misled and an application for injunction was filed only in relation to alienation of properties and soon after they came to know about it, they changed the counsel and filed the present application.

¶8

According to them, the appellants herein do not have any right or title over the land.

¶9

The respondents filed a counter opposing the I.A. They narrated the manner in which they acquired the title over the property. It was also stated that the construction has almost reached completion and a building of 20 floors has already come into existence. Other constructions are said to be in progress. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 27.02.2013. Hence, this appeal.

¶10

Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.B.Neeraja S. Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 19.

¶11

Respondents 1 to 19 filed the suit claiming one-eighth share in the suit schedule properties. An application was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC at the inception and it was only for the limited purpose of restraining alienation of the suit schedule property. By the time I.A.No.1187 of 2012 was filed, the construction undertaken by the appellants has proceeded to a substantial extent.

¶12

A building of 20 floors was brought into existence. The prayer itself was for restraining the appellants from “continuing the construction”. Such a prayer does not fit into the very purport of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. It is only when the land is vacant that an injunction of this nature can be granted. No useful purpose would be served if the building, which has been constructed to a substantial extent, is stopped at this

¶13

stage. Further, it goes without saying that any works undertaken while the suit was pending, will be subject to the outcome thereof nor the persons concerned can claim equities.

¶14

Hence, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. It is, however, directed that the appellants shall not commence any fresh constructions. It shall be open to them to complete the one which is already in progress. The trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably by the end of this year.

¶15

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.

¶16

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

_________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶18

____________ S.V.BHATT, J

¶19

25^th April 2013 Lrkm

Theme Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohd. Suleman , Goremiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Theme Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohd. Suleman , Goremiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Edara Ravi Kumar Vs Nallam Sridevi

Y.Venkateswara Rao Vs Smt. Y. Chetana [Jampala Chetana]

Chiluka Rajender Reddy , Tagore Reddy Vs Chiluka Gurva Reddy

R.Radha Vs P.Bhanu Prakash Reddy

Ch.Seshagiri Vs Ch.Srinivasulu

Rudrapati Yerraiah Naidu Vs G.Naga Sreelakshmi