The Court disposed of a revision seeking to challenge the annulment of a temporary injunction. The lower appellate court had not attended properly and failed to specify if the appeal was allowed or dismissed. The petitioner agreed to the annulment.
Revision disposed of; Trial Court directed to take up suit for disposal on priority basis.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
C.R.P. No.1459 of 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.S.No.75 of 2013 in the Court of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction. She has also filed I.A.No.98 of 2013 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction. An order of temporary injunction was passed on 22-04-2013. Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.18 of 2013 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The appeal was disposed of on 30-01-2014, almost with the consent of the parties. The order in I.A.No.98 of 2013 was set aside. The petitioner challenges the same.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
A perusal of the order under revision, i.e. the one, in C.M.A.No.18 of 2013, discloses that, proper attention was not paid by the lower Appellate Court. In the cause title, it was mentioned as though the appellant before the Court was the plaintiff in the suit, whereas the appeal was filed by the defendant. Further, the result of the C.M.A. was not indicated at all. It was not mentioned, whether the C.M.A is allowed or dismissed. All the same, the order in I.A.No.98 of 2013 was set aside. Simply a direction was issued to the trial Court to dispose of the suit. The approach of the lower Appellate Court was totally unsatisfactory. Be that as it may, once the petitioner has agreed
for the annulment of the order of temporary injunction, she cannot make any complaint, at this stage.
The C.R.P is accordingly disposed of, directing that the trial Court shall take up the suit itself for disposal, on priority basis.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in the C.R.P., shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20-10-2014.
KO
Petitioner
Respondent
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
