Allowed

Naseem Begum v. Siddiq Ali Khan

Telangana HC21 Dec 2023CRP/2763/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition setting aside an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order. The court held that the trial court erred in extending the stay without hearing the petitioner who alleged failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for serving documents.

What did the court decide?

The ad-interim injunction granted by the trial court dated 04.11.2022 is set aside, and the trial court is directed to hear both sides and dispose of the interim application.

Naseem Begum Vs Siddiq Ali Khan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶7

clvrl REvtSION PETITION NO: 2763 0F 2022

¶8

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia by setting aside the exparte interim orders dated 04.11.2022 in lA No. 561 of 2022 in OS No. 630 of 2022 on the file of Learned ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge Cum Xlll Addt. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Raiendranagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Naseem B_egum, W/o Shaik Khan Mohammgd, Aged 4T yea-=, Occ.Housewife, Fi/o H.No. 7-77, Darga Katij Khan, Gandipet (M), R.R. bistrict.^'

¶11

...PETITIONERYDEFENDANT

:i, 1i1;

,j..

AND

Siddiq AIiKhan, S/o Mir Yousuf Ati Khan, Aged 20 years, Occ.Business, Rl/o H.No. 10-2-347 lBl33, Mallepatti, Asif Nagar, Humiyunna{ar, Hyderabad..

¶16

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 20 22

¶18

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 an suspend the order dated 04.1 1 .2022 in tA No. 561 of 2022 in OS No. 630 of 2O2 on the file of Learned ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge Cum Xlll Addl. Metropoli Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. T BALA MOHAN REDDY, Advocate

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondents: SYED SHAHNAWAZ, Advocate(not appeared)

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶22

¶23

't., i& #Et

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No.2763 of 2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Aggrieved by the order dated O4.I1.2022 in I.A.No.561 of 2022 in O.S.No.63O of 2022 passed by the Court of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, petitioner/defendant filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶28

Heard Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court grarrted ad-interim injunction order on 04.11.2022 in I.A.No.56L of 2022 with a direction to the respondent to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC on or before 24.1L.2O22- Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has not received any documents and petition along with the notice and to that extent she liled a memo before the trial Court on 24.11.2022 wherein he mentioned that she received RPAD cover contains only a plaint and petition copy without documents and annexures and she also mentioned the weight of the RPAD cover. In spite of liling a memo the

¶30

¶31

SKJ,"/ C.R.P.No.2763 of2022

¶32

trial Court extended interim order granted earlier without considering the objections rajsed by the petitioner herein. As such, prayed the Court to set aside the order of the ad-interim injunction granted in I.A.No.56 1 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022.

¶33

Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case between Mkesft as. mrrlo'thi Boj and orst., wherein this Court observed that after obtaining the ex-parte injunction they have not complies with the mandatory provisions of the Order 39, Rule 3 CPC. Therefore, the injunction order granted should be vacated

¶34

In the present case, this Court observed that the AS Registered Cover did not contain all these documents, such, it is not the compliance.

¶35

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material available on IN record, the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction I.A.No.561 of 2022 in O.S.No.63O of 2022 dated 04.11.2022 with a direction to the respondent to comply with Order XXXX Rule 3 of CPC. She filed memo stating that^she

¶36

'^{1996 (41 ALD 1225}

¶37

-) SKIJ C.R.P.No.2763^o12022

¶38

received^{RPAD cover containinga plaint and petitioncopy} without any^{documentsand annexuresthroughRPAD'} According^{to the petitionersix (6) documents are filed along} with the^{plaint, which is mentioned in the plaintcopy as list} of documents.^{Without observingthe memofiled by the} petitioner,^{the trial Courtdirected the petitioner to serve the} documents^{again, which is against the settled principlesof} law. Further^{directionof tria-l Court shows that documents} a-re not^{received by this petitioner'}

¶39

In view of the^{contentions made by the learned counsel} for the^{petitioner,the ad-interiminjunctiongranted by trial} Court is hereby^{set aside and the trial Court is directed to} hear both^{sides and dispose of the I'A as earlyas possible'}

¶40

8 Accordingly,^{the Civil RevisionPetitionis allowed'There} shatl be^{no orderas to costs.}

¶41

Asa sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions, pendingif any,}

¶42

shall stand^closed.

¶43

SD/. P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR '

.,'i

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO N OFFICER

To,

l.ThellAddl.JuniorCivi|JudgeCumXlllAddl.MetropolitanMagistrate, Cyberabad at^{Raiendranagar.}

¶49

One CC to^{SRl. T BALA MOHANREDDYAdvocate[OPUC]}

¶50

One CC to SRl.^{SYED SHAHNAWAZ Advocate} [OPUC]

¶51

Two CD copies.

cvk

k..

HIGH COURT

DATED:21l1212023

..i
',1-r i 1
iJ2
..1.

ORDER

CRP.No.2763 ot 2022

CRP is Allowed.

@;5,^

!il 'Effif', ..{.{r i"t

Naseem Begum v. Siddiq Ali Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseem Begum v. Siddiq Ali Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkata Raja Tirukovela Vs Smt. Dharani Paravastu

KadamAishwarya@ BonthalaAishwarya Vs BonthalaSrikanth

Sheri Anuradha Vs Sheri Shiva Charan Teja

Bandari Srinivas Vs Gandam Jampaiah

Smt. K. Srilatha , Ajju Srilatha Vs Kathi Nagaraju

Smt.Lavanya Vs Yavapuram Sridhar