Allowed

Venumula Krishna Reddy v. Kallem Venkat Reddy

Telangana HC13 Oct 2023CRP/3071/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a civil revision petition challenging an ex parte interim injunction. The High Court set aside the trial court's order for failure to give reasons as required under Order XXIX Rule 3 CPC despite dispensing with notice. The matter was remanded for disposal on merits.

What did the court decide?

The interim injunction order dated 11.09.2023 in I.A. No. 288 of 2023 is set aside. Matter remanded to the trial court to dispose of the Interlocutory Application on merits within two months.

Venumula Krishna Reddy Vs Kallem Venkat Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

.l FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE.HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON NO: 3071 0F 2ol3

¶6

Petition under Nlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 1 1-09-2023 rhade in t.A. No. 288 of 2023 in os. No. 98 of 2o23 on the fite of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Thungathurthy, Suryapet District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

¶9

Venumula {rishn? Egddy, S/o. Venumula, Aged 52 years, Occ- Real Estate, Fyo. H.No.r 3-12-92154. Plot No. 54, 7th Cross^-A, Roa-d No. 1. Rocktown C6lonv. Hayathnagar, K.V. Ranga Reddy District, Telangana-500 068. i:

...PETtTtONER(S)

AN D

({ll.em-V,e1ka!Reddy, S/o. RamReddy, aged 54 years, Oce-^private Emptoyee. Rl/o H.No.,6-67/1, Bhavani Nagar. Ditsukhnagar, Gaddiannaram, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy, Telangana-500 060.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

lA NO:¹ OF 2023

¶16

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court inay be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 98 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Thungathurthy, Suryapet District till disposal of the present Revision^petition_

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support bf the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order dated 11loglo23 passed in l.A No. 288 of 2O2g in O.S. No. 98 ol 2023 on the file of {unior Civil Judge at Thungathurthy, Suryapet District tilt disposal of the present Revisio\ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the' Petitioner(s):SRl. VADEENDRA JOSHI Counsel for the Respondents:

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3O71 of 2023 ORDER:

¶23

This Civil Revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/ delendant aggrieved by the order ctated 11.O9.2023 in I.A.No.288 of 2023 in O.S.No.98 of 2023 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Thungathurthy, Suryapet District rn,hich reads as follows:

¶24

Upon motion made unto this Court bg Sn D. Mallaiah, Aduocate for the petitioner/ plaintiff, upon reading the plain| petition and affi.dauit fi.ted in support thereof, upon perusing the documents fi.led^{artd upon} heaing the arguments of the said_ Aduocate, this Court doth ORDER that an od. interim ex parte injunction rs passed restraining the respondent, his familg members, their seruonts, agents and men etc., from interfeing uith the peace./ul possession and enjogment of the petitioner ouer the petition schedule tand. till 29.09.2023.

¶25

Perusal of the record shows that respondent/plai.ntiff filed a suit in O.S.No.98 of 2023 seeking perpetual injunction against petitioner/defendaat restraining their illegal interference over the suit schedule land. During the pendency of the suit, an Interlocutory Application .,,vas

¶26

¶27

frled, in which the above order was^{passedwithoutarty} notice to the^petitioner / defendant^{and no reasons were} assigned for dispensing with the^{notice. Hence, the} petitioner/ defendant relied upon citation of a^Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh in Bacharai} Singhul Vs. Hastimal Kotharil in uLhich it utas^{held as} follous:

¶28

"{Jnder Order WXIX RuIe^{3, it is incumbent uponthe} louter court to issue notice before^{grantinginjunction.} If for any reason, the court^{proposesfo grant inteim} injunction uithout issuing notice on account^{of some} speciol circumstances, it is^{necessarythat tLLe court} should record reasons tLere for.^{It is tle prouisothat} makes it mandatory on the part^{of the court to giue} reasons uith reference to the^{circumstonces thot} compelled tLe court to come to the^{conclusion thot} time taken in seruing tLe notice^{utoulddefeat ttre uery} purpose of granting the injunction. Therefore,^any order passed granting injunction^{ttithoutgiuirtgthe} reasons for inuoking the exception is uitiated.

¶29

Perusal of the order shows that^{no reasons were} assigned by the trial Court^{while granting interim} injunction, as such the order^{of the} trial^{Court is erroneous} and the same is liable to be^{set aside.}

¶30

I (1) 1980 (l) ALT 90

¶31

¶32

.//

¶33

In the result, the civil revision petition is allowr:d by setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 1I.O9.2O23 in LA.No.2B8 of 2023 in O.S.No.98 of 2023 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Thungathurthy, Suryapet Dis;trict. The matter is remalded to the trial Court and the trial Court is direr:ted to dispose of the Interlocutory Application on merits after fi1ing counter and after giving due opportunity to both the parties within two (02) mc,nths from the dat e of receipt of copy of this order. No ord,:r as to costs.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶35

closed.

¶36

SD/- P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

¶39

To, ii 1. The Junior Civil Judge, Thungathurty, Suryapet District. 2. One CC to Sri. Vadeendra Joshi Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies 4. One spare copy \yI

CHG I NS

SECTION OFFlCER

HIGH COURT

ir PSS,J !,.

DATED: 1311012023

ORDER

GRP.No.3071 of 2023

6
1 T I €
q
P
r
I B 0 E 7023 a
-h
;*)
t
,)

¶48

,. ,,, ii .i . :-r..', i^.i t,i1,,.. ,$^. ;

¶49

.ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

¶50

Venumula Krishna Reddy v. Kallem Venkat Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venumula Krishna Reddy v. Kallem Venkat Reddy

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

Smt. Venishetty Laxmi Vs Saida Sultana

T. Jhansi Vs Jangeti Parthasarthy

Medak District Backward Classes Service Cooperative Vs M/s. Bansi Industrial Corporation

Bolisetty Yellamma Vs Mohd. Shafeequrr Rahman

Afsar Begum (Died) through LRs Vs Mohd Abdul Bari (Died) through LRs

Dasari Krishaiah alias Pasula Krishnaiah Vs Mutyala Chanda Reddy