Remanded

Axis Bank Limited v. M. Prabhakar

Telangana HC26 Dec 2014CMA/1001/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the grant and extension of status quo under CPC. The court directed the lower court to dispose of the interlocutory application on merits within four weeks after the appellant filed a counter affidavit arguing the suit's maintainability.

What did the court decide?

Direct to lower court to dispose of I.A. No.1371 of 2013 within four weeks on merits.

Axis Bank Limited Vs M. Prabhakar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

C.M.A. No. 1001 OF 2014

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order and decree dated 17.12.2013 in I.A.No.1371 of 2013 in O.S.No.1557 of 2013 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, on the file of VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the Court below has granted status quo.

¶5

2. Facts which are necessary for disposal of the Appeal are that the respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.1371 of 2013 in O.S.No.1557 of 2013 for grant of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and that main suit is filed for perpetual injunction stating they are the owners and possessors of suit schedule property and that appellants/defendants 1 and 2 tried to auction the suit schedule property.

¶6

3. The appellants/defendants 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit stating that the suit itself is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’).

¶7

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

5. Learned counsel for the appellants states that status quo order was granted on 17.12.2013 and though they have filed counter affidavit on 31.12.2013 in I.A.No.1371 of 2013, the Court below is not taking up the aforesaid interlocutory application and going on extending the status quo order from time to time. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the suit itself is not maintainable under SARFAESI Act.

¶9

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs submits that they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, as such, the Court below has granted Status quo.

¶10

7. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that Status quo was granted on 17.12.2013 without recording any reasons. However, sufficient reasons have to be recorded for grant of an ex parte injunction. It is pertinent to note here that the appellants, who are respondents in interlocutory application, have filed counter affidavit. Instead of disposing of the I.A on merits, the Court below is extending t he Status quo order from time to time, which is not proper. The appellants have also raised a specific plea that the suit itself is not maintainable.

¶11

Since counter affidavit is already filed by the appellants in the aforesaid Interlocutory Application, the Court below is directed to dispose of the I.A.No.1371 of 2013 in O.S.No.1557 of 2013 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein.

¶12

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this CMA, shall stands dismissed.

¶13

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶14

December, 26, 2014. KVS

¶15

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶16

C.M.A. No.1001 OF 2014

¶17

Date: 26-12-2014

¶18

KVS

Axis Bank Limited v. M. Prabhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Bank Limited v. M. Prabhakar

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

L.Lakshmi Kala, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Abdul Rasheed, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mada Vithal, Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/

Ravipati Kotaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramvat Sevya Nayak, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh