Allowed

Menugu Balaiah v. Smt. v Neeraja

Telangana HC27 Jul 2023CRP/1858/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order granting status quo while dismissing an application to extend an ad interim ex parte injunction. The order was held to be without reasons and set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 08.06.2023 set aside and the matter reconsidered; the lower Court directed to dispose of I.A.No.1548 of 2022 on merits within one week.

Menugu Balaiah Vs Smt. v. Neeraja — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 18 58 0F 2023

¶7

Petition under Articre 227 of the constitution of rndia, against the order dated:08-06-2023 in l.A.No.1 s48 ot 2022 in o.S.No.414 of 2022 on the fire of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Narayanapet.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Menugu Balaiah, S/o Sayanna, Aged about 54 years, R/o 6_ 250, Anjanagiri, Yellur, Kollapur, Nagarkuinool.^"

¶10

G.olla. srinivasulu, S/o Sailu, Aged about 60 years, No 2_ 3g, Malachintalapally, Kollapur, Nagarkurn"ool.^----'

¶11

Jallula Rambabu, S/o Naganna, Aged 57 years, R/o 2_ 15_ 1Ol1 , Kollapur Post, Kollapur, Nagarkurnoiol Disirict."

¶12

M. Bhaskar Yadav, S/o Eda.n1g, Aged 47 years, R/o 6_ 21g, Anjanagiri, Yellur, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool Disirict."

¶13

Udutha. llaSarajq, S/o Krishnaiah,.Aged 43years, Rt/o 1- i33/A, Ramapuram, yellur Koilapur, Nagarkurnoot District- ...petitiinlrslo"renaini r.io.-s i6'ii'

¶14

AND

¶15

1 Smt. V. Neeraja, W/o Srinivasulu., -D/o Venkanna, Aged about 36 years, Occ Home maker, Rl/o Nethajinagar, Makthal lrtanOat, H/ZniOoobnaga;.^{- -'} ---

¶16

... RespondenUplaintiff

¶17

t)gO9r.i Venkanna, S/o Lingappa, Aged About 72 years, Occ Agriculture Rt/o 15- 81 ,. nethajinagar, Makthdt Mandil, Narayanap6i District.

¶18

Devarinti Narsimha Reddy, S/o D. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ Farmer, RIo 1 0- 1 1 3, Nethajinagar, Makthat Vr'nOrll ruarayr;;-p;i^{--' "'} -""

¶19

Arun Kumar Aganval, S/o Ravinder.Kumar Agarwal, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Author, Rl/o Plot No. 34i, Jubilee Hills, FVOera'OaO

¶20

9f!..9.999vi Agarwat, W/o Ravindra Kumar Agarwat, Aged 75 years, RIo Plot No. 341 Road No. 23lA, Jubitee Hi[s , nyOdraUaO.

¶21

...Respondents/Defendants No. 1 to 4

¶22

Respondents 2 to 5 not necessary

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

Petit on und e S;ection 151 CPC praying lhat in the ci-:;unrstances stated in the aff idavit frlerl n support of the petition, the Higl- Ccurt ,na),be pleased to Suspend the irn pug e I order dated 08.06.2023 in l.A No.1:.lil o' 2022 in O. S. No. 414 of 2022 on nc file of the Principal Junior Civil Judller at I,larayanapet till the pend ing d ispo sa of the Civ I Revision Petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Pet ic,ners: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Res )cndents: SRI M. VENKATA NARASH|MI{ A REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

i I I

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶29

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1E5E OF 2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

l. This petition is directed agair.r st the ordcr dated 08.06.2023 in [.A.No. I548 of 2022 in O.S.No.zt14 ol 2022 on rhe fite ol the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Narayanpet (hereinafter referred to as 'Court below'), rvf rein u,hile considering the application i.e., 1.A.No.300 of 2023 liled for extension of ad interim cx partc injunction, order has been passed vacating the ad interim ex parte injunction granted earlier. Further, the Court below granted sLatus-quo without disposing of [.A.No.1548 of 2022, ,,r'hcreunder tcmporary injr-rnction was sought.

¶32

The petitioners herein are respondent Nos. 5 to 9/defendant Nos.5 to 9, respondent No. t herein is petitioner/ piaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein are respondeht Nos.l to 4/defendant Nos.l to 4 before the Court below.

¶33

The main grievance of the petitioners herein is that when the application filed for extension ol ad-intcrim ex parte injunction rvas dismissed, the Court below should not have granted slalus quo order. It is also their griev4qgc that the Court bclorv ought not

¶34

¶35

Lo h:, r'r: gr:,t.i[(]a it-re zrrl inti:rirn cx^{pa,rteinjirrrcLi'lr-r It ls alsri ti-tuil} contc t't^Lt olr^tlir.i',- r:spondcni No.1^{1-rcreinT[]elitioneli: Lztir,'tilT rlir-l rroi} coniplr'^{i.hc rc c1r} irenrent unclei-^{rJrder XXXIX Flulc (.3) oi tLre f.odcol'} Civil [rroci;r^{]L tt-r:} 'i'his u,as bt-<-rr.rghi to the notitc ol il r- (loL.trt hr--lo'.t bv opet.:tng^p.rr' irl cover on 25.()4.20'23,^{r irerein l::(loul-1 bt:lorl} I I llrc :;aid fournd^I ha. or r, the pci.itiolr papers z\i(l r^{llol c} ei circLlinslat-ccs. t l(r C,lurl belrlu slioul(i^{ll'', \ir \t't->,tcrlclr([ LLlc} or(lCrs ijll t).:t.r ).,.()2:l and^{shou[d rrot hir,.'(.} I.,.]s^{ji'd.he p'rr:sctrt} impLr31re.c1 ,rr.('^{( ated OtJ 06.2023,}

¶36

It is^I h,-] 'clrtentioll cli^{ttre ler'rrned co lnst:l or resf;orldr:nt} No. I 7 pc'Litioncr^'1 laintill^{tha.t thc allegedre.,;isterrt} '^{lposLnlcor'er} u.:rs brougl-rt_ t( 1[te notlac^{ol L]-re COurt belc'v :rlt.,lr Lhrr:c llttlrrths} from the dau: r^{':;ettding it and not immeciiiltr:l1 al tt r recciring it} is zrlso sta ccl^L "' him that^{there is eminent thrt:at ()i alietlationol} thc suit prrpor v^b-! the^{pet.itir.lnersherein.} 5. The mpt grred order shorvs that appli<:aticr^{'.r'ar; movedb)'} re spclnclcn | i',^tr I hercin sce kiug extension^{of acl rl Ler.m e)i partc} in^jLrnctron grat tr. d previously. lt appears,^t..leCo -lrt^{be lov,r$'hile} disposing t lit: raid application,^{has observedthiL: ac-iutcrimcx} parte inj ur-ict io r $,zrs vacaled,^{horvever, agailr gr,l,ried statusquo.}

¶37

¶38

Such order is without any reasons. In fact, the main application seeking temporary injunction is still kept pending. Therefore, this court leels that the impugned order requires to be set aside and the matter is required to be reconsidered.

¶39

6 . In the result, the Civil Revision petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 08.06.2023 in I.A.No. l54B of 2022 in O.S.No.414 of 2022 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge at Narayanpet, is set aside and the Court below is directed to clispose of I.A.No.1548 of 2022 on merits, pending on its file, within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, rvithout waiting for service of notice on other respondents/ defendants. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, sha1l stand closed.

¶40

Sd/.T.JAYAS E ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

The Principal Junior Civil Judge,^{at Narayanapet.}

¶43

One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

One CC to SRI M. VENKATA^{NARASHIMHA REDDY,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶45

Two CD Copies

kam d,

I I I l

HIGH COURT

DATED:27107,2023

ORDER

..'., t'.-l l.',- ', :-...
,.,.. )r
,y'', {.. \
,y,1,
lr:
\l [\tt NTI .. i
\ij
'r.,
':.. j r

¶52

CRP.No.1858 of 2023

¶53

THE CIVIL RE /ISION PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶54

l{s )
%'

Menugu Balaiah v. Smt. v Neeraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Menugu Balaiah v. Smt. v Neeraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thota Laxman Vs The State of Telangana

Nekkella Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Joga Bhavani Vs The State of Telangana

Br Mngr.,Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Hyd Vs Ghanpur Rajamani , Rajibai and Anr.

United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs Gottemukkala Rajavva , Rajamma and 7 Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Y.Venkateswarulu and 2 Ors.