Partly allowed

Thummanapally Smt. Narsamma v. Smt. Santha Bai

Telangana HC1 Dec 2023CMA/549/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against ex parte interim injunctions in property suit. Court held trial court committed error in extending injunctions based only on memos. Directed trial court to dismiss interim application within 1 month and parties to maintain status quo until then.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to advance arguments on 13.12.2023. Trial court directed to dispose of I.A. No. 121 of 2023 by 29.12.2023. Status quo maintained with undertaking from appellants to advance argumen

Thummanapally Smt. Narsamma Vs Smt. Santha… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 549 OF 2023

¶7

Appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC., against the orders^passed in lA 121 of 2O23 in OS^'19 of 2023 dt 17^-O4-2O23, on the file of Sr civil Judge, Sanga Reddy at Zaheerabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Thummanapally Smt. Narsamma, Wo. Late Manaiah, Aged about 90^years, Occ. Agriculture,Ryo House No.5-1-273 Near lvlanjeera Public School, Saanthi Nagar, Zahiraba. Sangareddy Dist.

¶10

Thummanapally Sri Venkatesh, S/o. Late Bakkappa, Aged about 51^years, Occ. Agriculture, Chinna Hyderabad, Zaheerabad(M), Sangareddy Dist.

¶11

Thummanapally Sri Sanganna, S/o. Late Hanmanthu, Aged about 82^years, Occ. Agriculture, Ri/o. Chinna Hyderabad, Zaheerabad^(M), Sangareddy Dist.

¶12

Thummanapally Pandu, S/o Late Bakkappa Aged about 48 Years Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Chinna Hyderabad, Zaheerabad (M), Sangareddy Dist.

¶13

Thummanapally Anjanna, s/o Sd Sanganna Age.65^years Occ. Agriculture Rr/o. Chinna Hyderabad, Zaheerabad (M), Sangareddy Dist.

¶14

Thummanapally Shivanna, s/o Sri Sanganna Age.68^years Occ. Agriculture R/o. Chinna Hyderabad, Zaheeabad^(tvl), Sangareddy Dist.

¶15

Tummanpally Narayana, S/o Sanganna aged about 55 Years, Occ- Service, H.No. 6-3-788/14 1st floor, Opposite lane to Gold spot,Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶16

Tummanpally Subash, S/o Sanganna, aged about 58 years, Occ- Agriculture, Rt/o Chinna Hyderabad village, Zahirabad mandal, Sangareddy Dist. T.S.

¶17

9- Tummanpally Mallamma, Wo Late Mallanna, aged about 65 Years Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Chinna Hyderabad village, Zahirabad Mandal, Sangareddy Dist. T.S.

¶18

...APPELLANT(S)

¶19

AND

¶20

Smt. Santha Bai, W/o Late Ghanshyam Prasad, Aged about 75 Years, Occ House maker, Rl/o. H.No.2-2-61 , Bhavanimandir Road, Zaheerabad town, Sangareddy Dist.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶23

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 order passed in lA',21 of 2023 in OS 19 ot 2023 dt 17 -O4-2O23, on the file of Sr civil Judge Sanga Reddy at Zaheerabad^pending disposal of the appeal.

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. T SHARATH

¶25

1((\

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondents: DAMODAR MUNDRA

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AIISHETTY

¶29

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.549 OF 2O2g

¶30

JUDGMENT:

¶31

Heard learned counsel Sri T.Sharath for the appellants and learned counsel Sri M.Damodar for the respondent.

¶32

This CMA is filed by the appellants assailing t1e ex parte interim order dated 17.04.2023 passed in I.A.No. 121 of 2023 in O.S.No. 19 of 2023 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy at Zaheerabad arrd extending the same, time and again on 3O.06.2023, 13.OT.2O23 and O4.OS.2O23 on a memo hled by the respondent as illegal ald improper.

¶33

The responcient herein instituted O.S.No. 19 of 2023 for perpetual injunction against the appelrants herein in respect of land admeasuring Acs. 12.15 guntas in Sy.No.S6/1 and Acs.6.0g guntas in Sy.No.56/2 of Chinna Hyderabad village, Zalrcerabad Mandal, Sanga Reddy district along with the I.A. 121 of 2023 seeking interim injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the above property. .rhe trial court granted ex parte interim injunction vide order d.ated, 17.04.2023 in the said I.A.

¶34

4' Appellants herein rrled counter on 2g.o4.2o23. The interirn injunction is being extended from time to time on frling a memo hled by the respondent. The appellants raised two grounds; l) as per the Order XXXIX Rule 34 of

¶35

LNA'J Ci4,4^No.549oI2023

¶36

¶37

CPC, trial^{Court has to disposeof the interlocutory application within a} period of 30^{days from the date of the order'However'the trial Court did not} dispose^{of the applicationwithinthe said period' Secondly' the trial Court} extended^{the interim order time and again on mere frling of memoby the} respondent,^{which is contraryto the proceduresince no orders can be} passed on^memo'

¶38

The learned^{counsel for the appetlants did not press the other grounds} raised^{in the appeal and confined his arguments only to abovetwo grounds'}

¶39

Per contra'^{learned counsel for respondentsubmitted that appellants} herein did^{nol raise any objection bcfore the trial Court for extension of} interim^{order on hling of memoby the respondentand therefore,the appeal} is frled an^{afterthought,which cannot be permitted.In ary event mere} technicality^{shall not come in the way of dispensationof justiceto parties' He} further^{submitted that lt is in iact' the appellants'whohave beentaking} time without^{advancinga'rgumentsand the learnedcounselsPecifrcallY} per which,^learned referred^{to docket proceedingsdated 15'11'2O23'as} hled written^{arguments' whereas' the} counsel^{forresPondent herein} for ad,vancing^{arguments'He further} appellants^{hcrein soughl time} learned^{counsel for appellantsbeforetrial} contended^{that on 30 'tO '2023'} Court^{hled a memostatingthat this Courtgranted interim stay in I'A'No 1 ot} 2023^{irtCMANo 549 of 2023} '^{whereas' this Court grantedorlly status quo'} which^{is clear misrepresentationbefore the trial Court'}

¶40

LNA,J Ctt4A No.5aq of 202l

¶41

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellants^{reliedupon the decision of learned} single Judge of this Court in^{Syed Yousuf AIi vs. Mohd. Yousuf and} othersl to support of his contention^{that no judicial order cal be passedon}

¶43

a memo

¶44

8 The learned single Judge in^{Syed Yousuf Ali held as under}

¶45

"12. The first and^{foremostconteotionof the learnedcounsel forthe} respondents is that^{no judicialorder be passed based on memoFiling of} memo is not contemplated either^{underCode of CivilProcedureor under} Civil Rutes of Practice-^{The purpose of receiving memos by the Courtis only} to receive certarn intimation^{pertaining to the lb pendingbeforeit.Since} filing of memo is not^{contemplatedunderCode of CivilProcedureor Civil} Rules of Practrcc, no^{judicia.t order canbe passedon memo. But the trial} Court passed a^judicial order^{basedon memowhich is contrary to the} established^{practice. Therefore, the orderpassedby the trial Court basing} on memo dated 11.O9.2O15^{frled beforethe triaf Court is erroneous andit} is an illegal exercise of^{jurisdictionwhichis confined on it.}

¶46

In vier,r, of my discussion^{in the earlier para, I am of the clearvieu'that} no^judrcial order can^{be passedon memo.}

¶47

g. After advancing arguments^{for some time, both the counsel fairly} submitted that without^{goinginto the merits, the CMA can be disposed of} with a direction to the trial court^{to dispose of I.A.No.121of 2023 within a} specilied period of time^{and till such time, the order of statLtsquo grantedby} this court can be continued^{with an undertakingthat the appellantsherein} shall advalce their arguments^{on 13.12.2O23 positively.}

¶48

'2016(2)ALT557(DB)

¶49

LNA,J CLA No.519 of 202 3

¶50

¶51

In the light of above submission of both counsel, C.M.A. is disposed of ^rith the following directions:

¶52

i) The appellants herein shall advance a_rguments on 13.12.2023, to which date the I.A.No. 121 of 2023 was posted for hearing before the Senior Civil Court, Zalt-eer abad.

¶53

ii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.121 of 2023 on or betore 29.12.2023. Till such time, both parties shall maintain status quo as directed by this Court vide order dated 2O.1O.2023.

¶54

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, stand closed.

¶55

SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy at Zaheerabad. 2 One CC to SRl. T SHARATH Advocate [OpUC] 3 One CC to SRl. DAMODAR MUNDRA Advocate [OpUC] 4 Two CD Copies NS

HIGH GOURT

DATED:01 11212023

ORDER

CMA.No.549 of 2023

1 HE STA} \t
Ak )
io >t,'. I
0 7 r.! 2024 C)
t)t
ta::,

¶67

APPEAL !S DISPOSE OF

¶68

c)+,
€
3N,t

Thummanapally Smt. Narsamma v. Smt. Santha Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thummanapally Smt. Narsamma v. Smt. Santha Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Hanumandlu Vs The State of Telangana

Shankapuram Sai Teja, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

P Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana

K. Koteshwar Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

K Samuel John Vs The Commissioner of Labour

Md.Zaheeruddin Vs The Government of Telangana