This order dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal against a finding that the petitioners should have sought relief regarding property alterations in their pending suit for specific performance rather than via an interim injunction application.
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is 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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
C.M.A. No. 757 OF 2014
O R D E R
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 30.05.2014 in I.A.No.52/2014 in O.S.No.18/2014, on the file of IV Additional District Judge cum Vacation Judge, Ranga Reddy District where under the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule (1) and (2) r/w Section 151 of CPC for grant of interim injunction against the respondents restraining the respondents, their GPA., agents, relatives, workers or any other person or persons claiming under or through the respondents from changing the nature and topography of petition schedule property including cutting of trees, digging or ploughing the earth, changing the boundary stones and bunds of petition property.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has not considered the case of the petitioner in proper perspective. He also contends that since the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.2175 of 2006 is pending before the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District, the presiding officer is on leave and no officer is holding the post in the Court in which the suit is pending, no relief can be granted by the Court below. It being a vacation period petitioners were unable to move further application in the said O.S. As such, the present appeal is filed.
A perusal of the impugned proceeding shows that the appellate Court has dismissed the application holding that pending O.S.No.2175 of 2006, petitioners should not have filed the present suit seeking similar relief and that they could obtain relief in the said suit itself. While dismissing the said application, the trial Court also observed on merits and also on the ground that the suit schedule property is not handed over to the petitioners. While making these observations, it is mentioned that they can seek relief only in O.S.No.2175 of 2006.
When the petitioners have rightly filed O.S.No.2175 of 2006 for specific performance of agreement of sale and also filed application seeking injunction in the year 2012, nothing prevented the petitioners from filing the present application in the said suit. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity in the order
passed by the Court below refusing to grant relief. However, it is open for the petitioner to move appropriate application if so advised in O.S.No.2175 of 2006 which is filed by the petitioners for specific performance of agreement of sale and if the same is filed, the Court below is directed to dispose of the same without being influenced by the observation made by the Court below in I.A.No.52 of 2014.
Subject to above, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Date: 18.10.2014 dv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court below erred in dismissing the application for interim injunction by observing that the petitioners could seek similar relief in the pending suit for specific performance.
Whether the pending nature of the suit for specific performance prevented the filing of the present injunction application.
Whether the trial court's observation on merits regarding non-handover of property was a valid ground to dismiss the interim application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondents
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
