Allowed

Bandari Srinivas v. Gandam Jampaiah

Telangana HC21 Dec 2023CRP/32/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two civil revision petitions challenging injunction orders and police protection orders illegally passed by the Trial Court. The Court found the Trial Court violated statutory timelines and procedural mandates by delaying disposal beyond thirty days and granting police protection without hearing the counter.

What did the court decide?

Orders in I.A. No. 165 of 2020 and I.A. No. 386 of 2013 set aside; Trial Court directed to dispose of the said I.As within 30 days.

Bandari Srinivas Vs Gandam Jampaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^338s I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CIVIL REVIS toN PETIT ON NO:32 AND 33OF 2022

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:32 OF 2022

¶8

Petition under A.rlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, Aggrieved by the Order dated 16-11-2021 passed in l.A.NO. 165 ol 2O2O in l.A.NO. 386 of 2013 lN O.S. NO.163 OF 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge At Mahabubabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bandari Srinivas, S/o. Late Komuraiah, aged.42 Years, Occ. Business,

¶11

Bandari Harikrishna, S/o. Late Komuraiah, aged. 39 Years, Occ. Business

¶12

Bandari Pushpa Latha, Wio. Venkateshwarlu, aged. 30 Years

¶13

All are residents of Rayaparthi Village and Mandal of Warangal District.

¶14

...PETITIONER/S

¶15

AND

¶16

Gandam Jampaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, aged 38 Years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Thorrur Village and Mandal of Mahabubabad District (Formerly Warangal Diskict).

¶17

Gandam Siva, S/o.Gopal, aged: 30 Years, Occ: Legal Practitbner, R/o. H.No. 4-120, Ernarhula Village, Hanamakonda Mandal, Warangal District.

¶18

...RESPONDENT/S

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

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 stay the orders dated. 16-1 1-2021 in l.A. No. 165 of 2O2o in l.A.No. 386 of 2013 in O.S. No. 163 of 2013.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. D V CHALAPATHI RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A PRABHAKAR RAO

¶23

¶24

CIVIL REV s ION PETITION NO: 33 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Article 1 15 of Civil Procedure Code, aga insUaggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2013 passed in l.A.No. 386 of 201 3 in O.S. No. 163 of 201 3 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad.

¶26

Between:

¶27

1 . Bandari Srinivas, S/o. Late Komuraiah, aged 42 Years, Occ Business

¶28

Bandari Harikrishna, S/o. Late Komuraiah, aged 39 Years, Occ Business

¶29

Bandari Pushpa Latha, Wo. Venkateshwadu, aged 30 fYears All are residents of Rayaparthi Village and Mandal of Warangal District.

¶30

...PETITIONER/S

¶31

AND

¶32

1- Gandam Jampaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, aged 38 Years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Thorrur Village and Mandal of Mahabubabad District (Formerly Warangal District).

¶33

Gandam Siva, S/o.Gopal, aged 30 Years, Occ: Legal Practitioner, R/o. H.No 4-120, Emamula Village, Hanamakonda Mandal, Warangal District

¶34

...RESPONDENT/S

¶35

lA NO:² OF 2022

¶36

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 stay the orders dated: O2-12-2O13 in I-A.No. 386 of 2013 in O.S. No. 163 of 2013.

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. D V CHALAPATHI RAO

¶38

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A PRABHAKAR RAO

¶39

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶40

=:7

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CTVIL REVTSION PETITION Nos.32 and,33 of2022

¶42

COMMON ORDER:

¶43

C.R.P.No.33 of 2022 is hled being aggrieved by the order dated O2.L2.2O13 in I.A.No.386 of 2OI3 in O.S.No.163 of 2013 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad wherein the tria_l Court ordered ad_ interim injunction. According to the petitioner, he hled counter on 15.04.20 14. Even after filing the counter, the petition was not disposed of as per Order XXXIX Rule 34, within 3O days from granting the ad-interim injunction order, as such, prayed the Court to set aside the order dated 02.12.2013.

¶44

Heard both sides.

¶45

tearned counsel for the petitioner would submit that tl.e trial Court without following the procedure laid under Order XXXIX Rule 3A of CpC without disposing the order since last 8 yea_rs, the respondent/plaintiff is enjoying the ad-interim order which is against the law and prayed the Court to set aside the order.

¶46

¶47

¶48

2 slis.J C.R.P-Nos.3^{3 and 32 of2022}

¶49

¶50

learned^{counsel forthe} 4. On^{theotl:Ier hand,} that this^{Court may be} respondent^{would submit} extendedthestatusquotllT2a.o2.2o22d'irectingthetrial Court to^{disposeof the matterson merits'}

¶51

CRP.No.32^{of 2022 is frled being aggrieved by the} order dated^{16.ll'2021inl'A'No'165 of2O2O in} I.A.No.386^{of 2013 in O'S'No'163 of 2013 passed by the} Court of^{the learned SeniorCivil Judge' Mahabubabad'} wherein the^{trialCourt granted policeprotection} observing^{that the respondentnot to take any steps to} vacate ttre^{injunction order' Againstthe same'he filed} the^{present Civil Revision Petition stating that he frled} counter^{in April 2O14' Obsenringthe same' the trial} Court^{without going through the record' erroneously} passed the^{Order dated 16' LL'2O2L'as such' prayed the} Court to^{set asidethe order'}

¶52

6. Heard both^sides'

¶53

Learned^{counsel for the petitionerwould submit} thatt]retria]Courterroneouslygrantedad-interim Even though,^{he f,rled counter'beforetaking} injunctron.

¶54

¶55

r.-

¶56

sKs.-/ C.R.P.Nos.33 and J2 of2022

¶57

into the consideration of counter filed by him I.A.No.165 of 2O2O in I.A.No.3S6 of 2073 in O.S.No.163 of 2013 is allowed granting the police protection which is against the settled principles of law, as such, prayed the Court to set aside the order.

¶58

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that direct the trial court to dispose of the matter and maint ain status quo-

¶59

Having regard to the riva_l submissions made by the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, both the reasons are against the order in I.A.No.3g6 of 2073 wherein the trial court grarted ad interim injunction on o2.r2.2o13 and even after filing the counter in the month of April,201 4, the tria-l Court not disposed of the matter. According to the petitioner, three reasons were recorded in not disposing of the said I.A. After that, the trial Court a_lso granted police protection vide I.A.No.165 of ZO2O rvithout

¶60

observing the counters filed by the revision petitioner.

, I

, I

s,(5._r C.R.P.Nos-33 and 32 of2022

¶66

As seen from the record, the trial Court not followed the procedure laid down under Order XXXIX Rule 3..4. of CPC. According to tl-rat, the Court has to dispose of the ad-interirn injunction within 30 days and without going notice to the other side, the triat Court also granted police protection to the said order which is against the settled principles of law.

¶67

Therefore, the order in I.A.No.165 of 2O2O and tn I.A.No.386 of 2013 are hereby set aside and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the I.A.No.165 of 2O2O and I.A.No.386 of 2O13 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and both the parties are directed to co-operate with t.I.e trial Court for the disposal of the said I.As.

¶68

L2. Accordingly, these Civil Revision petitions a-re allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

¶70

shall stand closed.

¶71

Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT REGIqTRAR //rRUE coPY// k--_ \ SECTION OFFICER

¶72

¶73

The^{Senior Civil Judgeat Mahabubabad} 2. One^{CC to SRl. D v-CHm,qpRtHt RAO,Advocate tOEUCl} Arl'rnnata trlPl ICI ^ ^-^^{nn+^ QplOOADLIAIzAf)DAr</sup>}

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2111212023

COMMON ORDER

CRP.No.32 AND 33 OF 2022

¶78

)..
1 ! [:rii iti" I
t
.. .^
,, .,
,-lSf, arcw

¶79

ALLOWING THESE CRPS

¶80

6
7D
1

Bandari Srinivas v. Gandam Jampaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandari Srinivas v. Gandam Jampaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

Smt. K. Srilatha , Ajju Srilatha Vs Kathi Nagaraju

Smt.Lavanya Vs Yavapuram Sridhar

bKarupothula , Chitaluri Kalyani Vs Karupothula Mahesh