Partly allowed

Church of South India Trust Association v. Devi Naveen Srinivas

Telangana HC3 Nov 2023CRP/3241/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment sets aside the trial court's ex parte interim order granting stay till disposal of the main suit to the extent it was indefinite. It directed the trial court to decide the interim application on merits within one month after giving both parties a chance to be heard.

What did the court decide?

The ex parte interim order granting stay till disposal of the suit was set aside to this extent. The trial court is directed to decide the application on merits within one month after hearing parties.

Church of South India Trust Association Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t t-I

¶2

[³²⁵³ I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDT#EABIITE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶4

T,?iI;Lt,."Iilf i^f l,ff #?Hfl?T

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

¶7

ctvtL REVISIONP ETITtoN No: 3241 of2 023

¶8

petiti dated'tB-.1 the Court o lll+ffi nl:,fl ,fti#n#i,,il;;*':'i,,:ff .?!r!3r:ir"r;r:;

¶9

Between:

¶10

fu m*i#3ttldif ffi ffi [[,?,::?.t5f,x;"?,rr,s:,8:1rT;

¶11

AND

¶12

...Petitioner/ t{espondent No.4/_ Defendant No.4

¶13

1 Devi Naveen Srinivas. S/r ;:^uz'l:i,:u*"s:liH:r#ttnnfi'"ol[';',;3s:,i%fi :,i"fi is

¶14

2 Bi'H##ffii"ftiglil,Zl::.lix%x.,t"f '%o;"util?t#:,88",,.?3181

¶15

...Respondents/ Petitioners Plaintiffs

¶16

¶17

fi l['tl:',ft{lrj[ilkif:i!lx'^:ffi f,kidti:irii'.#,ji]r*T:;

¶18

1. Church of South lndia Trus_! Association (Synod), Rep. by its Deoutu y,:g"^ii,X1 [br5,?: o. x^- riuoen-[,il;i,'#{,WhG"^.ril,0,, ril,i,i5fijiJ

¶19

5 Cfurch of South lndia Trust Association (Svnod) Rep. by its General

¶20

c+tENNAt gPptglg.ry, - 600014C. Ferna ndas n"t-r, i n"^- n-"],^"' irs)",viil]iu, Road, Royapeftah,

¶21

...Respondents/ Respondents/ Defendints I to 3

¶22

IAN O:1 OF 2023 :^ rxo nirr:r rn'lStances^statedin Petition^{under Section} :1 :? irt"t;.fl^[Al:1#"; H.li* ";;,sJ-;; [ is^I the "'iJ'l";;', court or^rr ,;.:'.'ffi [$"$ulfltti;,'+;iF'*

¶23

IAN O:2 oF2 023

¶24

he circumstances^statedin :,Z":\w,?f^dlsii:u8 rlditional^{JuniorCivil Juoge} H=dtl[.,5#dttgJg!:,,ffiH Ii rvr"ntnetiat^PendingdisP

¶25

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI A' SRINIVAS}

¶26

Counsel^{for the Respondents:SRI G' SAMPADA}

¶27

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶28

HONOURABLE

¶29

SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI cwrL REvISION PETITION No.3241 of2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Civil Revisio: o"ttt'o' is filed by defendant No. 4 in o.s. No. 349 of 2o23u"' sailing the orders of the principai Junior Civil Judge at Mancherial. B,y the impugned docket orders, the leanred principal Junior civil Judge while issuing urgent notice in i.A. No. 222 of 2023, iled by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 C.p.C. to the defendants, granted ex parte interim stay of suspension letters dated 31.12.2022 issued by the revrsion petitioner.

¶32

The facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, claiming to be the Church members/pastorate Committee Members/Council Deligates of C.S.l. Church, mandamarri pastorate, fiied the suit to declare the 37dr of Ordinary Session of Medak Diocesan Council meetings conducted on 29.12.2022 to 3O.I2.2O22 by the Medak Diocesan as valid, lawful and legal and the same is conducted as per the rules regrlated under the constitution of CSI & Medak Diocese with a consequential injunction revoking the sruspension letters issued on 31.72.2022 by the defendant No. 4-Church of South India Trust Association Medak Diocese,

¶33

¶34

against^{the plaintiffs' Alongu'ith the suit' the plaintiffsalso} ftled^{1.A. No' 222 of2O23seekinginterimstay of suspension of} Ir:ltcrs^{dafecl 3ll2'2L2'zissuedbJ' the clelendantNo 4The} trial^{Court by the impugned docket orders' u'hile issuing urgent} notices^{to the defendants'passed the foliorvirrgordcrs:}

¶35

,, .. .on perusat of tlrc^{aboue d'oatments'it ortpears to the court} thot^{there is o pimo facie in fauourof the peLitioner/ ptainttffand} irt case^{an exparte ad'-inten'mstay is not granted' andissuing} notice^{utouLdcause detag and the delog tuouldcause irreparoble}

¶36

'nturn ur" of the aboue ciraLm,stances, this court^{granted inteinr} stag of^{suspensiontettersdated31 12 2022issued bg the} respondent/^{defend'ant No 4and- permit the petitionersto} clischarge^{th'eir dutiesas per their election in ttle 37'h ordinary} session^{of Medakd-iocesancounsel lsicj d'ated29-12 2022to 30'} 12-2022,^{till disposal of the main suit till fiIing of counter' subject} to the complionce^{of ord'erXXXN'RuLe1 & 2 of CPC uithin 24} the hours . Mearutthite^{issue urgent notice to} respondent/^{defendantthrough aurtond RPAD' Call on} 15.12.2023;'

¶37

Thus, the^{trial Court having found pnmo facie case1n} lavour of^{the plaintiffs and having come to the conclusionthat} the delay^{will cause irreparable loss to the plaintiffs'was} pleased to^{dispense with the issuing of nolice to the defendants} and granted^{ex parte inlerimstay of suspension oi lettersdated} 31.12.2022 subject to the^{plaintiffs complyingwith the} requirements of order XXXIX Rules i & 2 CPC within 24 hours

and directed the matter to be listed on 15.12.2023. Ho,"vever, the discrepancy in the order is that in one way it reflects that the ex parte order is granted titl disposal of the main suit and in another way it reflects that it is grantcd till filing ol counter.

¶42

The general rule is that both sides must be heard before an interlocutory order is made under Order 39. Moving rvithout notice is the exception to the rule. But this casts a burden on the plaintiff who seeks to move without notice. Among other things, Order 39 Rule 3 and its proviso sets out the requirement that the court must record its reasons that the purpose of the injunction would be defeated by the delay, i.e., the delay in giving notice. In ICICI Ltd v Grapco Industries Ltd & Ors.r the Apex Court held that an ad-interim injunction^without notice should be for a short duration and^{must also consider its} consequences. An injunction without^{noticemust not continue} indehnitely.

¶43

Coming to the case on hand,^{the learnedtrial Court} having come to the conclusion^{that issuingnoticewould cause} delay and the^{delaywould cause irreparabieinjury to the} plaintiffs, has^{granted ex parte interim stay of suspensionof} Ietters dated^{31.12.2022. Though the order reflects that the}

¶44

'(1999)^{4 scc710}

¶45

¶46

rnLertm ordur \4,as granted till filing of the counter by thc cicl'endants, yet thcre is an observation that the interim orclcr \ as grantcrl till disposal of the suit, which rs not at a]l aci'cpLa blc under lalv Therefore, the ordcr to this cxtent is li:ritle to bc set aside.

¶47

6 In thc result, tl,re civii rev ision petition stands disposed oi s(.llrng itsidc the findings of the trial court to the extent it deals

¶48

rr irh gr;urrirrq cx parlc intcrim stay of suspension ol Icttcrs cl:rrcd 3 i .1,2.,2022 till disposal of suit. As it is brought to the norioL' of this Court that the defendants have filed thetr counter

¶49

ir-r thc I.A., 1l-re trial Court is directed to take up the I.A. and shall decidc rhe same on merits after affording opportunlty to both the partrcs u,ithin a period of one month from the date of rer:cipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶50

ckrsed

¶51

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

sd/- A.V.S PRASAD ASSISTANT REGI RAR

¶54

¶55

SECTlON FFICER

¶56

The ll Additronal Junior Civil Judge at Mancherial 2. One CC to SRI A. SRINT 3. ONE CC tO SRI G. SAMJ^{' AdVOCAIETOPUC]} )ADA' Advocate [oPUC] 4. TwocD copies

Kam/Sp

II r

HIGH COURT

DATED:0311112023

ORDER

CRP.No.3241 of²⁰²³

STr\f5
1t o
Y
Q:
l; 0 E t{[[ ?'lJB
, l)
'.. i':,
_ n..'

¶65

DISPOSING OF^{THE CIVIL} REVISION PETITION

¶66

\o
o

Church of South India Trust Association v. Devi Naveen Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Church of South India Trust Association v. Devi Naveen Srinivas

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

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Nakula Yashavantha Reddy and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Hyd Vs Thangeli Vital, Nalgonda District and Ano

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kaki Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Nalgonda District and Ano

J. Prabhakar Reddy Vs J. Janga Reddy

Chennamaduvuni Narayanaraju Vs M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohd Majid and Anr.