Remanded

Sri. G.V. Gyaneshwar Naidu and 4 others v. Smt Lalitha Srikrish and 13 others

Telangana HC7 Apr 2021CMA/90/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted without recording reasons as mandated by Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is invalid. The single judge's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 12.01.2021 granting ex-parte injunction was set aside, and the Interim Application was remanded to the XVI Additional District Judge for fresh consideration after hearing all parties.

Sri. G.V. Gyaneshwar Naidu and 4 others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY. THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TIJVO THOUSAND AND TWENTY oNE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

CIVIL MIS (- ELLANEOUS APPE AL Nos. 90 & 173 0F 2021

¶7

CMA N 0 of 20 1

¶8

(Appeal under Order XLlll Rule 1 of Code of Civil procedure against the Order in lA No.1 of 2021 in R&T.p.No.S of 2021, dated 12-1-2021, onihe file of the High court, renumbered as rA No.b9 of 2021 in os No.13 of 2021 , on the file of the court of the XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri.)

¶9

pErwEEN:

¶10

/I.Sri, G.V. GyaneshwarNaidu S'q G.P,R. Naidu,

¶11

Aged 55 years, Occ: Business.

¶12

Vo Plot No. 103. Ivq,A M? Colony,

¶13

Rgad No. 10C. Shaik Pet. Hyderabad 500033. Telangana

¶14

f^{Sri SudhakarReddyC,. S o,Lare Dhalnra Reddy.} (.{ged :52 years, Qcc: Business. Ro,C-34l1, BFIEL COlony, Opp. Lo1'ola college. Old Alwal, Secunderabad- 500010

¶15

f^{. Sri RameshGaikwad,S o Hr:lnanrhRao}

¶16

'Aged : 50 years, Occ: Business. R o S-J--.;9 iS I Nethaji Nagar, A.G. Colony,

¶17

Erragadda, Sanathnagar, FIy'derabad

¶18

f.^{Sri Palepu Jaya I(umar, Sro P. .1anohar,} /A,ged:35 years, Occ: Doctor.

¶19

No l-7-204. FIatNo. l0l,

¶20

Nirmala Residency, Bakaram,

¶21

Musheerabad, Hyderabad 500020

¶22

,/5^{. Sri Vod.taMadhava Rao, S/o. V. Mallal Rao,} - .A,ge$ 38 years, Occ: Bssiness, No.37-931399/9, Road No. 6, Qhurch^gtreet, Madhuranagar,

¶23

Neredmet, Secundefabad- 50005 6

¶24

. , . Appellantsr'Respondent No. 1 .4,5,7&9/Defendants 1,4,5, j &-9 4

AN]D

/^{1. Smt Lalitha Srikdsh W/0. Late SrikishSrinivasan.} Aged 60 years, Occ: Business. Rto. 12710, Bloomfield Ave. .,\nan:nenrs. I 51. Norw'alk. CA,906-(0

¶29

,2.^{Ms. SwethaSrikish, D/o. Late Srikrish} Srinivasan, 'Aged 37 years, Occ: Houservile, R/o.35117, 11'h Street, Union Citl . Califlomia, 94587, USA,

¶30

)

¶31

,3,^Mr. Sushant Srikrish S/o Lare Srikrish Sr.inivasan. ' Age: 3 i years, Occ: Service, fVo. 35117, 11th Street. Union Citr.. Califomia, 94587, USA /^{4.Mr. Shankar Srinivasan, Sio. Sri Late T.R. Srinivasan,} ' Aged 60 years, Occ: Business, fuo, 14611,Horse Shoe, Dr. Sarzitoga, califomia,95070, USA

¶32

It4ls L.A. Krish Enteprises, Situated at 3-6-101 /C, Chiranjeevi Aparrments, West Manedpally, Secunderabad -500026 Rep, by Smt Lalitha Srikrish residing at 127 tO, Bloorn Field Ave. Apartrnenr, 153. Norwalk, C..A. 90650 6 I 6, Dr. Padmasree Dream Projects p\4. Lrd., having its Regd. Office at 37 -1.26t5 t. Sree Colony, Neredmet X Road. Hyderabad 500056, Rep by its Chairman and VlanagiiiE Dir.eclor". Dr. Pitla Sreen Raj, S/0, Pitla I(rishna. Aged 46 years, Occ: Doctor.,Business, (Respondents No, I to 5 Rep, br Respondent No, 6. as GpA Holder) ., RespondentslPetitioners,@lainti ffs 7. Sri Tatineni Prasad Rao, Sio. T. Lokeshu.ar Rao. Aged 57 years, Occ: Business, No33-29/60 i3, Telecom Colony, Secunderabad 500094

¶33

¶34

SriK, Akhil Reddy, S/0. K. Pratap Reddy, Aged: 27 years, Occ: Business. R/o Flat No. 102. Kundan Towers 3-5-963/1, NarayanagudS. Htmayath Nagar. Hyderabad: 100029.

¶35

Sri Esther Athma Tanuja Bezawada, Wo Sudershan, Aged 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Plot No 203, Sri Sai Srinivas Estates, Sri Ranga Gardens, West Manedpally, Nehru Nagar, Hyderabad Telangana 500025

¶36

10, Smt, K. ,Anusha. D o, K.P. I'rrLri Srrr' t\^. o l'alcpu Ja1'a Kutrtar),

¶37

..\ged: 32 y'ears .Occ: Doctor-

¶38

R o l-:-10-{. Flat No. l() i.

¶39

\innala Residency. BakaLam.

¶40

!lusheerabad. Hl deraL.ld^- 5 0{)^t) i^tl

¶41

/ 11. Sri Bhikaram Choudharl S/o Ansaram Choudhary.

¶42

Aged: 5l vears Occ: Br.rsirress.

¶43

RJo l2-38, Balaji Nagar.

¶44

Jawahar Nagar. Yapral,

¶45

Secunderabad 500087

¶46

,,.^12. Smt^{RoopaDevi Choudhary,W/o BhikalamChoudhary,}

¶47

Aged 47 years, Occ: Houservife,

¶48

R/o 12-38, Balaji Nagar, Jawahar Nagar',

¶49

Yaprali Secunderabad^-5 00087

¶50

Sri Mangilal Choudhary, S/o Bheekaram^Choudhary,

¶51

Aged,: 49 years, Occ: Business,

¶52

Ri o 29 - | 4801 5 I l, i(akathiya Nagar,

¶53

Neledmet, Hyderabad 500056

¶54

a^{14, SrntSukiyaDevi, S1o. i\4angila1 Choudhary',}

¶55

Aged: 16 1'ears, Occ: Hor-rseri^{if e.}

¶56

Rio 29- 1480r5i 1, Kakathil a Naurrr.

¶57

\erednret. H1'delabad^{--i 0005 (r}

¶58

tResltortdents \o.^{7 to1} furrlc^{,,1 .. j\s,ir\l):lltics t}

¶59

. . .l{cs;'ott.:ctt:s Iic.1','1111.,',,.^{I)cltlrdants1.3.6,8.10.1I .11&i l}

¶60

' lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶61

Application under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in l.A. No. 1 of 2021 in R & T Petition No. 5 of 2021, passed on 12-01-2021 renumbered as lA No.59 ol 2021 in OS No.13 ot 2021, on the file of XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at lValkajgiri.

¶62

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶63

Application under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix any date of hearing of C ltilA No.90 of 202'1 .

¶64

i For the Appellants: SRI K.MOHAN, Advocate \

¶65

For the Respondents: SRI CH.A.B. SATYANARAYANA, Advocate

¶66

CM N oi 173 0F 2021

¶67

(Appeal under order 43 Rule 1 read with section 1 5 r of cpc against the order in lA No.1 of 2021 in R,T.p.No.S af 2o2i, dated i2-1-202t, on tne fire of the High court, renumbered as rA No sg of 2a21 in oS No.13 of 202i, on the fire oi the court of the XVI Additionar District Judge. Ranga Reddy D strict at Marka.jgrri ) Between: K. Akhil Reddy, S/o K. Pratap Reddl Age 27 years, Occ: Business R/o FIat No. 102, Kundan Towers, 3-5-963/1 Narayanguda, Himayatir Nagar Hyderabad - 500029

¶68

.. .Appellant/Defendant No. 3

¶69

AND

¶70

1 Smt. Lalitha Srikrish, Wo Late Srikrish Srinivasan Age: 60 years, Occ: Business No 12710, Bloomfield Ave Apartments, 153 Norwalk, CA - 90650 1 Ms. Swetha Srikrish D/o Late Srikish Srinivasarr Age:37 years, Occ: Housewife R/o 351 17, 1 l'h Street, Union Citl, California, USA - 94587 -1 Mr. Sushant Srikish S/o Late Srikrish Srinirasan Age: 3l years, Occ: Service R/o 35 I 17, 1 1'h Street, Union Citl' Ca)ifolnia, USA - 94587 + Mr. Shankar Srinivasan S/o Late'l'.R. Srinivasan Age: 60 years, Occ: Business fuo l46l 1, Horse Shoe, Dr. Saratoga California, USA - 95070

¶71

lWs L,A, Krish Enterprises :l:li,:f at 3_6-.1.0t,.c, Crriran jeevr .-\parrrrenrs \t c5t .\ldrredpallr. S..'1.,,,1e:.,1,:..1 :l ,,01t_r rtcpresent!-d b\ Snrt. Lalirha Si.ik,,.i, R o 1lil0. Blooilrlltit \rc .\r.rrr.llr:ir:s. l-<l \olg a^jk. Cl..\ 90a).<r-r 5 ,J,'s Dr Padntasrc.c l)i.earr l,ro.iecrs prt. I_rd. Having irs Regisrereri Oillce ai: j'- 1:6lj l. Srer Col,rrr. \er..ir..r X l(oad. Ihd.135..1 _ i,r00jo Represented br,: Jts Chairman and \lano.iin; Dirccror Dr. Pirla Sreen Raj S o Flrt, Krjshnl Age: 46 years, Occ: Doctor/ Business . . . Respondents,&lainti ffs 7 Sri G.V. Gyaneshwar Naidu S/o G.p,R. Naidu Age; 55 years, Occ: Business PJo Plot No. 103, MLA Mp Cotonv Road NO. i0C, Shaik pet Hyderabad - 500033 8 Sri Tatineni prasacl Rao S/o T, Lokeshrvar Rao Age: 57 years, Occ: Business R o 33-29 60rlJ. Telcc..,rrr Colonr Secunderabad - 500094 , Sri Sudhakar. Reddy, Cihillverl. S,o [.are C, Dharrra Reddy Age: -52 years, Occ: Ilusincss Rio C-31i l, BFIEL Colony . O1.p, I_ur ola College Oid Alrvel, Secuncle rabed - ,i000 l0 r0 Sri Ramesh Gaiku,ad Sio Hanmanth R.ao Age: 50 years, Occ: Busjness R/o 8-4-549138/t. Nerhaji Nagcr A.G. Colony, Erragadda Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 11. Smt. Esther Athma Tanuja Bezawada Wo Sudershan rrge: oz years, Occ: Housewife tuo Piot No. 203, Sri Sai Srinivas Estates S_ri Ranga Gardens, West Manedpally Nehrunagar, Hyderabad, Telangana,_ 500026 17. Sri Palepu Jaya Kumar S/o p. Manohar Age: 35 years, Occ: Docror No 1-7 -204, Flat No, l0l , Ninrala Tlesidencv Bakaram, Musheerabad Hyderabad - 500020

¶72

¶73

l1	Smt.K.AnushaW/oPalepu Jayal(umar
	Age:32 years,Occ: Doctor No1-7^-204,FlatNo.101,Nirmalal{esidencv Bakaram, Musheerabad Hvderabad-500020 -."-.
	SriVodela\4adhava RaoSro'..1r:IllIiao Age:38years, Opc:Business No37-93/33919, RoadNo.6.Cirr-rrch Street Madhuranagar, Neredmet Secunderabad-500056
15	.SriBhikaram ChoudharyS/o Ansaram Choudhary Age:5Iyears, Occ: Business R/o12-38,BalajiNagar,JawaharNagar Yapral,Secunderabad-500087
16	.Smt,RoopaDeviChoudharyWoBhikaramChoudhary Age:47years,Occ: Housewife fuo12-38,BalajiNagar,JawaharNagar Yapral,Secunderabad-500087
11	SriMangilalChoudharyS/oBheekaram Choudharl, Age:49yeals, Occ:Business IUo7.9-
18	.Snrt.SukiyaDeviW/oMangilal^(.hoLrdharr Age:46years,Occ:Houseri,it'e No29^-I48015Ii,KakathiyaNagar' Neredmet, Hyderabad-500056 RespondentsiDelendantsNos.I,2,4-I3

¶74

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶75

Application under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of thJ impugned order dated'12.01.202'1 in RTP No. 5/202.1 on the fite of High Court renimbered as l.A. No. 59 0f 2021 in O.S. No. 13 0f 2021 0n the fire of the xvl Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at lvlatkajgiri.

¶76

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶77

Application under Section 15.1 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order dated 12.01 .2021 in l.A. No. 1 of 2021 in RTP No. 5 of 2021 on the file of High Court, renumbered as l.A. No. 59 of 2021 in O.S. No. 13 oi 2021 on the file of the XVI Additionat District Judge, Ranga Reddy at lValka,jgiri.

¶78

For the Appellants: SRI R.SUSHANTH REDDy, Advocate

¶79

For the Respondents: --.

¶80

The Court delivered the following Common Judgment:

¶81

THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶82

AND

¶83

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶84

CMA.No.s 90 and L73 of 2O2L

¶85

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sn Jusrjce M.S, Railachaidra Rao)

¶86

During the Sankranthi vacation of this Court, when the trial courts are closed, there is a practice to file suits , which are normally filed in the trial courts, in the High Court, if urgent interim orders are needed in the suits, with a request to the High Court to Receive and transmit the same to the trial courts after considering the applications for interim relief.

¶87

On such suit OS(SR) No.... 2021, which ought to have been fiIed in the Court of XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, was presented by the respondents 1 to 6/plaintiffs in the High Court along with an iA.No.5 of 2O2l under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and Receive and Transmit Petition r.r,hich was numbered as Receive and Transit Petition No.5 of 202 1.

¶88

On 12.1.2021 , a learned single Judge of this Court granted an exparte ad interim injunction in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs in IA No.1 of 2O2l in OS(SR) No.... 2021 while directing the receipt of the said suit and it's transmission to Court of XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District .

¶89

.--

¶90

MSR.J & TVK.] C{As 90&^1732021

¶91

¶92

After the learned^{Single Judge passed the order on} t2.Ol.2O2l, the^{XVI AdditionalDistrictJudge, RangaReddy} District at Malkajgiri^{had numberedthe suit as OS'No'13of} 2O2l atd. IA No.^{lof 2Q2l filed by the respondents 1 to} 6/plaintiffs under^{Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC as} IA.No.59 of 2021.

¶93

In both these^{appeals, the said order dt'12'O7'2021} passed in IA.No.1 of^{2021 in OS(SR) No"" 2021 passed by} the learned Single^{Judge of this Court in the Vacation Court} is being challenged.

¶94

Since the order^{is pronouncedby the Vacation Benchof} this Court, treating it^{as an appeal againstthe order passed} by the trial court,^{these appeals are preferredto this Court} invoking Or.43^{R. 1 CPC to consider the correctnessof the} said order dt.l2.Ol.2O2l^.

¶95

Tine learned^{Single Judge when he passed the order on} 1.2.01.2021 in IA.No. I of^{2O2l inOS(SR) No"" 2O2I} observed in the^{said orderthat he had perusedthe plaint and} documents filed in^{support of the plaint by respondents 1 to} 6/plaintiffs, that he^{had pima} facie^{found that the} respondents i to^{6 have title and possession over the suit} schedule properties,^{and that there is every possibility that} respondents 1 to⁶ /^{plaintiffs would be put to hardship,if ex} parte injuoction is not^{granted;and then he proceeded to} grant ad-interim injunction^{up to 27.01.2021 by dispensing}

¶96

MSR,J & TVK.J CMA5 90& l7l 2021

¶97

¶98

with the notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC subject to compliance of sub-Rule (b) thereof by the respondents 1 to 6 within 24 hours.

¶99

Though counsel for the appellants Sri K.Mohan, Sri R.Sushanth, and counsel for the respondents 1to 6, Sri M.Surender Rao, Senior Counsel for Sri Ch.A.B. Satyanarayana and Sri K.S.Murthy, advanced several contentions on merits, we are of the opinion that the matters can be disposed of on a short point, i.e, that in the order dt.12.Ol.2O2l passed in lA.No.1 of 2O2i in Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, the learned Single Judge while grantin g ex-parte adinterim injunction, he had not recorded the reasons, which are required as per the prouiso to Rule 3 of Order XXXX CPC.

¶100

The learned Single Judge had simply referred to the contentions in the plaint in one paragraph, and contentions of Sri M.Surender Rao, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6/plaintiffs in the next paragraph, and the concluded that he had perused the plaint and documents and he pima .facie finds that the plaintiffs have title and possesslon

¶101

Unfortunately, there is no discussion of the contents of any documents either in regard to the title set up by the respondents 1 to 6 or on the aspect of possession of respondents 1 to 6 on the date of filing of the suit, which are required to be recorded while granting ex-parte injunction

¶102

¶103

MSR,J & TVK.J CVAS 90& l7l 2021

¶104

agajnst the appellants to protect the alleged possession of respondents 1 to 6.

¶105

1 1 . the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal

¶106

Corpn. of Delhir held that:

¶107

"32. Pou.ter to grant injunction is an ertraord.inary potuer uested in the court to be exercised taking into consid.eration the facts and circumstances of a partianlar case. The courts haue to be more cautious u.then the said pouter is being exercised u.tithout notice or hearing the partA uho is to be affected bg the ord.er so passed. That is whg Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Cod.e requires that in all cases the court shall, before grant of an injunction, direct notice of the application to be giuen to the opposite-portA, except where it appears that object of granting injunction itself would be defeated by delag: By the Ciuil procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, a prouiso has been ad.d.ed to the said rule saging that "tuhere it is proposed to grant an injunction uithout giuing notice of the application to the opposite-partg, the court shall record the reasons for^{its opinionthat the} object of granting the injunction utould be defeated bg delag . . . " .

¶108

It has come to our notice that in soite of the a resaid stafutoru irement, the courts haue been passlnq orders of iniunctio n before issuance of notices or heainq the rties aaainst tuhom such orders are to operat e u.tithout recordino the reasons for passin such orders. It is said that if the reasons for grant of injunction are mentioned, a gieuance can be made bg the other side that court has prejudged the issues inuolued in the suit. Accord.ing to us, this is a misconception about the nature and the scope of interim orders. It need not be pointed out that any opinion expressed in connection with an tnterlocutory

¶109

'^{ree:1:) scc tot}

¶110

'.{'.

¶111

MSR,J & TVK.J CMAS 90 & 173 2021

¶112

application has no bearing and_ shall not offect ang partA, at the stage of the final adjudication. Apart from that nout in uiew of the proubo to Rule 3 aforesaid, there is no scope for anA argu ment. When the statute itself requtes reasons to be recorded. the court cannot iqno re that reauirement bu saurnq that if reasons are recorded. it mau am ount to resslna an oplmon tn fauour of the^plainti ff before heainq the defendant.

¶113

The imperattue na ture of the orouiso ha,s to be iud in the context of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. Before the prouiso aforesaid was introduced, Rule 3 said "the court shall in all cases, except tahere it appears that the object of granting the injunction u-tould be dekoted bA the delaA, before granting an injunction, direct notice of tle apptication for the same to be giuen to the opposite-partA',. The prouiso taas introduced to prouide a condition, tDhere court proposes to grant an injunction uithout giuing notice of tte application to the opposite-party, being of the opinion that the object of granting injunction itself shall be dekated by delay. The condition so introduced is that the court "shall reco rd tLLe reasons" whu an ex parte order of iniunction was beino in the facts and ciranmstances of a partianlar case. In this backqround, the requtrement for recordtnq the reasons for^qrant ofexparte iniunction. cannot be heldtobea mere fonnalitu. This requrreme nl is consisfent utith the principle ,thatapartu to a suit, who is beino restrained from exe rclsltTq a nqht LDhich such^partu cLaims to exercise either underas tatute or under the comfiLon lau, must be tn formed tuhu tnstead of follouinq the requLrement of Rule 3, the procedure rescibed under the rouiso has been lloued. The oartu tuhich inuokes the lu risdiction of the court for qrant of an order of restraint aoa Lnst a Dartu. u)ithout affordinq an opporfi)ni tu to him of beinq heard, musl safis the court about the raul o the situation and court has to

¶114

MSR.J & TVK.J CMAS 90 & 173 2021

¶115

¶116

consider bieflu these factors in the ex parte order We are qtite conscious of the fact that there are other statutes uhich contain similar prouisions requiring the court or the authoitg concemed to record reasons before exercising pouer uested in them. In respect of some of such prouisions it has been held that they are required to be complied uith but non-compliance tLereuLith u.till not uitiate the order so passed.. But same cannot be said in res ect of the rouiso to Rule 3 ofO rder 39 The Parliament has prescibed. a partianlar procedure for passing of an ord.er of injunction uithout notice to the other sid"e, under exceptional ciranmstances. Such ex parte orders haue far-reachinq effect, as such a condition has bee t7 tmposed that court must reco rd reasons before passl/1q such order. If it is held that the compliance with the prouiso aforesaid is optional and not obligatory, then the introduction of the prouiso by the parliament shall be a futile exercise and that part of Rule 3 tuill be a surplus age for aII practical purpo ses. Prouiso to RuIe3 of Order 39 of the Code attracts the pinciple, that if a L s,atute reou res a thino to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not all. This pinciple utas approued and occepted in u,tellknou.n cases of Taglor a. Taglor(1875 1 ch D 426) and Nazir Ahmed. u. Emperor(AlR 1936 pC 253(2). This Court has also expressed the same uieu.t in respect of procedural requirement of the Bombag Tenancg and Agricultural Lands Act in the case of Ramchandra Keshau Ad.ke u, Govind Joti Chavare(1975 (1) SCC 559).'

¶117

(emphasis supplied)

¶118

12.We respectfuliy follow the said judgment of the Supreme Court, and only on the ground that the ex-parte ad_interim injunction granted by the learned Single Judge in IA.No.1 of

¶119

MSR,J & TVK,J CMAS-90 & I73 2021

¶120

1 i

¶121

i )

¶122

2O2l ln OS(SR) No....2021 (now renumbered as IA.No.59 of 2021 rn OS.No. 13 of 2O2l by XVI Additionai District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri) does not contain such reasons, we deem it appropriate to set aside the said order and remand the matter back to the Court of the XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri for fresh consideration.

¶123

Accordingly, the order dt. t2.01.202t in IA.No. I of 2O2I in OS (SR) 2O2l by the learned Single Judge ( now renumbered as IA.No.59 of 2021 in OS.No.13 of 2021 by XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri) is set aside, and said IA is remanded back to the Court of the XVI Additionai District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri for fresh adjudication; the XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri is directed to decide IA.No.59 of 2O2l in OS.No.13 of 2O2l on his file, after hearing all the parties, on or before 30.04.2021 a-fter considering their respective submissions.

¶124

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either parties and the lower Court is directed to decide the said IA uninfluenced by what was recorded in the order dt.12.01.2021 in IA.No.1 of 2O2l in OS (SR) ...2021 of the lea:.ned single Judge and also this order

¶125

MSR,J & TVK,J CMAS m& l?3 2021

¶126

::8: :

¶127