Dismissed

Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and another

Telangana HC17 Mar 2022CRP/405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two civil revision petitions, the High Court declined to interfere with the lower appellate court's dismissal of defects challenging ex parte interim injunctions against a transportation company seeking to block a film on Google/YouTube, observing that the trial court had remained bound under CPC to dispose of objections within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions dismissed; direction to Trial Court to dispose of objection applications within four weeks.

Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

THURSDAY THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAY OF IVARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETI^{TION NO :405& 450 0F 2022}

¶6

CIVIL REVISION^{PETITIONN O: 4OSOF 2022}

¶7

(Petition under Article 227 of constitution^{on lndiaaggrievedby the order} dated 20-12-2021^{passedin c.lil.A.Nos.88 and 89 of 2021, on the file} of the court of the^{XXV Additional chiefJudge,city civil court at} Hyderabad Preferred^{against theOrder dated 03-12-2021in} t.A.No.41 I of 2021and^{419 0f 2021in o.s.No. 4797 0f 2021 0n the file} of Court of the^{X Junior CivilJudge, CityCivil Court, Hyderabad'}

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

RooDen Transoortation Services^{P\I. Ltd, Havingits Registeredofficeat.3rd} ftob'r, Sat Pri-thvi^{ArcadelleghaHills, Sri Ramlcolony, Madhapur' Hyoeraoao-} bboObi" n"flr".unt"o by in"^{Authorisedperson tvtr. SreenivasaTeja} Ouvvurif ft/a nbgero^{pe ratrons} ) ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 Telanoana Statc Road Transport Corporation and another' Having^its R;;i.f"*; oii'." ot Bus^{Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Itrlusheerabad, Hyderabad-} 50d 020 Rep. by^{its Nilanagirrg Director,V.C. Sajjanar}

¶12

Google LLC,^{D/B/AYouTube 901CherryAve San Bruno'CA 94066 USA}

¶13

(R-2 not necessary^{parly in} the CRP) "'RESPONDENTS

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the exparte^{ad inierinr order datedO3-12-2021in I.A.No-419 of 2021in} o.s.t',to. 4797^{ot 2021 on the file of Honble X Junior civil Judge, city civil court,} Hyderabad.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner :Mr. L.Ravi Chander, Senior Counsel for SRl. RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. Vivek Reddy,Senior Counsel for SRl. T JAYANT JAISOORYA

¶18

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 450 OF 2022

¶19

(Petition under Article 227 of Constitution on lndia aggrieved by the Order daled 20-12-2021 passed in C.t\il.A.Nos.B8 and 89 of 2A21, on the file of the Court of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad Preferred against the Order dated 03-12-2021 in lA.No.41B of 2021 and 419 of 2021 in O.S.No. 4797 of 2021 on the file of Court of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad .

¶20

Between:

¶21

Roppen Transportation Services P,(. Ltd, Having its Registered office at 3rd Floor, Sai Prithvi Arcade, tr/egha Hills, Sri Rama Colony, l,4adhapur, Hyderabad50008,1 Represented by the Authorized Person l\lr. Sreenivasa Teja .-.PETITIONER Duvvuri(lt4a nager-Operations)

¶22

AND

¶23

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation ancl another, Having its Registered office at Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, il4usheerabad, Hyderabad500 020 Rep. by its N/anaging Director, V.C Sajjanar

¶24

Google LLC, D/B/A YouTube 90'1 Cherry Ave San Brurro, CA 94066 USA E- mail. [email protected] Rep. by its Resident Grievance Officer for YouTube, Suraj Rao

¶25

(R2 not necessary pafty in this petition)

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶28

Petition 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 suspend the exparte ad interim order dated 03-12-2A21 in LA.No,418 of 2021 tn O.S.No. 4797 oI 2021 on the file of Honble X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad .

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. L.Ravi Chander, Senior Counsel for SRl. RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vivek Reddy,Senior Counsel for SRl. T JAYANT JAISOORYA

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

rroN'Bl-L sRr JUSTTCE UJJAr- BHUYAN e R^{p-.Noc.405_&r150c,i2022}

¶33

Conrmon Orrlt'r':

¶34

Heard tr4r. L.Ilar,'i Crander, leamed Senior Counsel for the revision petitioncr'. .rnd \1r. Vivek Reddy, Iearned Senior C-ounsel for respondent No.1/lelangana State Road Transpon C-oqporation (rsRrq

¶35

This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 o{ the Constitution of India to set aside the Common Order dated 20.12.2027, passed by the )OCV Addl. Chief Judge, Gry Gvil Court at Hyderabad (lor shon^'rhe lower appellate coun), as^well as to set aside the sxpdrtu arl itt/tint orden dated A3.12.2021 in I.ANo.418 of 2a2I and 419 ct{ 2a21, in O.S.No 4797 of 2021 passed by the X Junior^Gvil Judge,^{City Cvil Couns at Hyderabad(for shon 'the trial} coun).

¶36

Revision petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit instituted^by respondent No,1 as the plaintiff being O.S.No.4797 of 2021.The suit has been institr-rtcd for pelpetual and mandatory^injunction against defendlnt No.1 restraining it from telecasting, broadcasting,

¶37

)

¶38

streaming eh'., the original trnd rrodified venions ol tlie :rcl iiinx in questlon.

¶39

Injunction petitions under Order )COflX Rr"rles 1 & 2 of the Code of Gvil Procedure, 1908 (CPq, being IA.Nos.a l8 of 2a2l and 419 of 202, were also filed by the plaintiff. I)y separate orders dated 03.12.2021, trial coun granted ad )r/rtitit injr,urction directing defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 hereir.r) to blocl< access to the original and modified version of the ad film ;rt tl're linla identified by the plaintiff as mentioned in tl.re orders dated 01.12.2021. \X&ile passing the aforesaid orders, Ieamed tr-ial cor,rr-t rlirectecl the plaintiff to comply with Order )OOflX RLrle 3 CPC by issLring notices to the respondenti and fxed the next date of hearing as 27 .12.2a21 .

¶40

Aggrieved bythe aforesaid orders dated 0-1.12.2021, defendant No.1 preferred appeals before the lou.er appellate coun being CMANos.8S and 89 of 2021. By the^(bmmon Order dared 20.72.2027,1ower appellate court has disnissed the appeals by taking the view that revision petitioner shoLrld file countcr belore tl-re trial coun whereafter, the trial coun wor-rld pass an .rppropriate order ot

¶41

¶42

injunction after he;rring both the sides. \X.4rile holding so, lower appellate coun tool< the vierv that ex parte interim orders passed by the tnal court cxnnor be set aside in appeals.

¶43

Leirmed Scnior Cbr-rnsel for the revision petitioner has placed reliance on t\'o clecisiorrs of the Supreme C-ourt being Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archann Kumarr and A.Venkatasubbaiah Naidu v. S.Challappan2. I [s contention is that it is open to a defendant to avail either oi the tu,o renredies 2.r., contest the injunction petition under Order )oGlX Rule 4 CFC or file appeal under Order )(-III Rule 1 CFC. Vieu. taken by the lower appellate coufi that it cannot side aside ol Pdrle otl it/eixt orders of the trial court in appeals is not in accordance u,ith lirr.r,and hence, is liable to be interfered with.

¶44

On the othcr hand, leamed Senior C-ounsel for plaintiff (respondent No.1) subrmts tl-rat view taken bythe trial coun is fully justified. To suppon his contention, he has placed reliance on a

¶45

'^{(2005;1 S.,p.",,'," (,orrrt(lises 7Sl}

¶46

2 (2000;7 Sup."rl. Corrrr C-rscs 695

¶47

¶48

decision of the Supreme^{C-oun in Waudcr Ltd V' Antox India} Private Limitedl.

¶49

8 Submissions made by^{leamed counsel tor clefendant No'1} (revision petitioner) have been^{dulyconsiderecl.}

¶50

'Without^{enteringinto any factual n.ratrix,tvhat is evidentis that} plaindff had filed injuncdon Petitions^{urcierOldcr )OCOX Rules 1} and 2 CPG trial coun^{passed separateorderson 01.12'2021 granting} acl interint injection^{while directing the plaintrll tc' comply with Order} )OC(X Rule 3 CPC^{by fixing 27 .12.2A21asthe next date of hearing'} Flowever, instead of^{contestingthe injr-rnctior-rpetition, defendant} No.1 preferred appeals^{underOrder XLIIIRrrle1 CpC beforethe} lower appellate court,^{whichhave been dismissed by the impugned} Common Order.

¶51

C.ourt has carefully^{gone through the orders of the trial coun} and the impugned^{common order ol the lor'ver eppellatecor-rnas weLl} as the^judgments of^{the Supreme Coun cited trt the Bar' \Mtile the}

¶52

3 1900 lSupp; Strpreme Cotrrt Cascs 727

¶53

¶54

¶55

lou,er appellate courr may not be correct in taking the view that ex pdr/(: nd hterilt orders passed bythe trial court cannot be set aside in appeals under Order )CLIII Rule 1 Cpq nonetheless in rhe present proceedine r-rnder Anicle 227 of the Constitution of India, C-oun is not inclined to interfere ln the matter, inasmuch as defendant No.1 (revision petitioner) has the remedy under Order )OOCX RLLIe^,t CJ']C. Ir is open to defendant No.1 to contesr rhe injunction petitions l'iled bv the plaintiff. Under Rule 3A of Order )O(XIX CfC tri,rl coun is under an obligation to malie an endeavor to f inally dispose ol the injunction applications filed by the revision petitioner (de1'endant No.1) within thiny dap from the date on which the ihjunction rvas granted.

¶56

That being the position, while declining to intedere with the impugned Common Order dated 2A.Q.2021 passed by the lower appellate coufi in C\fANos.SS and 89 of 2021, Cnun is of the view that it is open to delendant No.1 (revision petitioner) to move the trial court byfiling objections to the injunction petitions filed bythe plaintiff under Order X)OOX Rules 3 and 4 CPC and if such objections/applic:rtions arc liled, the same shall be considered bythe

¶57

¶58

trial coun expeditiously and^{at any rate,r,.ithir-l ;l period of four weels}

¶59

lrom the date o[ liling such objecrions/appliclLiuns.

¶60