Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 260 (TS)

Swagath Townships v. Pilli. Chennaiah

2022-03-24

A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No.4 assailing the order dated 01.10.2020 in IA No.70 of 2020 in IA No.390 of 2014 in OS No.352 of 2014 on the file of the X Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.4 and for the respondents/plaintiffs. Perused the material placed on record. The detailed submissions have been made by both sides, which are more or less on pleaded lines. Therefore, it may not be necessary for this Court to refer in detail such submissions. However, the submissions so made have received due consideration of the Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the original suit. 4. The plaintiffs have filed the Original Suit along with IA No.390 of 2014 for declaration of title and consequential injunction declaring the plaintiffs as owners and possessors in respect of suit schedule property. When the suit was pending trial, the present application is filed in IA No.70 of 2020 under Order-39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the original suit. 5. On a careful perusal of the order impugned, it is noticed from paras3 & 4 that on service of notice, respondents/defendants 1 to 3 remained absent, as such they were set ex parte, whereas respondent/defendant No.4 orally gave an undertaking before the trial Court stating that he is not going to alienate the petition schedule property and prayed for dismissal of the petition. The trial Court after hearing both sides allowed the application with an observation that prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs and that the defendants are trying to alienate the petition schedule properties. Accordingly, to preserve the suit schedule properties in status quo, ad-interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants 1 to 4 and their men from alienating the suit schedule A & B properties during pendency of the suit. 6. The defendant No.4 has assailed the said orders by filing the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court alleging that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts. 6. The defendant No.4 has assailed the said orders by filing the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court alleging that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts. In fact, there is no necessity for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. After verifying the records, the Court below found that in schedule A, land in Survey No.78 admeasuring Ac.0.32 guntas, in schedule-B, land in Survey No.75 – Ac.0.14 guntas and land in Survey No.85 – Ac.0.17 guntas is available. But the Court below has granted interim injunction not to alienate only for certain extent and not complete extent of land. The respondents 1 to 6 colluded with each other and completely sold the property in respect of which Sec.38-E certificate is obtained. 7. Whereas, respondents 2 to 6 who are the plaintiffs in the original suit, have filed detailed counter denying the grounds of appeal stating that the Court below ought to have seen that IA No.70 of 2020 in IA No.390 of 2014 in OS No.352 of 2014 ad-interim injunction was granted not to alienate the land in Survey No.75 – Ac.0.14 guntas, Survey No.78 – Ac.0.32 guntas and Survey No.85 – Ac.0.17 guntas total admeasuring Ac.1.23 guntas situated at Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, which is the schedule A & B properties. The trail Court also failed to consider that the survey numbers mentioned in the impugned order in IA No.70 of 2020 as per the Dharani, Survey No.75 total extent Ac.4.1000, Survey No.78 – Ac.9.2700 and Survey No.85 total extent - Ac.4.3900, but the Court below without 8. This application in IA No.70 of 2020 is filed under Order-39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 4 from following due process held the complete extent of appellants’ land and accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders alienating the suit schedule properties admeasuring Ac.0.32 guntas in Survey No.78, which is schedule-A property and the land admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas in Survey No.75 and Ac.0.17 guntas in Survey No.85, which is forming part of schedule B property. 9. The trial Court in the operative portion of the order categorically mentioned that the petition is allowed granting ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents /defendants from alienating or creating any charge over the schedule-A and B properties pending disposal of the main suit. 10. 9. The trial Court in the operative portion of the order categorically mentioned that the petition is allowed granting ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents /defendants from alienating or creating any charge over the schedule-A and B properties pending disposal of the main suit. 10. The object of granting temporary injunction is to preserve the matter in status quo till the case is finally decided. The law is also well-settled that the grant of interim injunction is a discretionary remedy and in exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing such relief, the Court will look into the following: i) whether the person seeking a temporary injunction has made out a prima facie case. This is sine qua non; ii) whether the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., whether it would cause much inconvenience to him if injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which either side would be put if injunction is granted. iii) Whether such person seeking a temporary injunction would suffer irreparable loss and injury. However, it is not necessary that all the three conditions must be satisfied. That the first condition is sine qua non. At least two conditions must be satisfied by the plaintiff conjunctively and mere proof of one of three conditions does not entitle a person to obtain temporary injunction. 11. The grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is most important. Ordinarily three main principles will govern the grant or refusal of injunction; prima facie case, which is sine qua non, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The plaintiffs have to satisfy that they have prima facie case with the balance of convenience in their favour, otherwise they would suffer irreparable loss and injury. To make out a prima facie case, first and foremost, the plaintiffs have to establish their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence and they cannot rely on the weaknesses or otherwise of defendants case. 12. Further, the object of granting a temporary injunction is only to preserve the matter in dispute is status quo until the case is finally decided. To maintain status quo means not to make any physical changes in the property such as demolition, alterations, levelling etc. 12. Further, the object of granting a temporary injunction is only to preserve the matter in dispute is status quo until the case is finally decided. To maintain status quo means not to make any physical changes in the property such as demolition, alterations, levelling etc. Though at the time of granting temporary injunction, the Court is not called upon to decide finally the rights of the parties, the Court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried and decided then only the Court may be justified in issuing temporary injunction to maintain status quo during pendency of the Original Suit. 13. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the original suit is filed in the year 2014 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Along with the original suit, IA No.390 of 2014 was filed for temporary injunction. While the matter stood thus, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff have filed the present application for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or creating any charge over the petition schedule A & B properties. As per the orders impugned, the defendants 1 to 3 remained absent and they were set ex parte, whereas defendant No.4 who is the appellant herein, orally gave an undertaking not to alienate the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit and requested for dismissal. Having agreed orally before the trial Court, he preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the said orders in IA No.70 of 2020. 14. During enquiry before the trial Court, no document is exhibited and no witnesses are examined. The trial Court seems to have placed heavy reliance on the undertaking given by defendant No.4 stating that he is not going to alienate the suit schedule property. As defendants 1 to 3 remained absent and as defendant No.4 gave an undertaking not to alienate the suit schedule property, the trial Court passed the impugned orders dated 01.10.2020 directing the defendants 1 to 4 not to alienate the suit schedule properties so that the subject matter involved in the suit will be preserved in status quo, till the matter is finally decided in the original suit. I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order impugned. I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order impugned. Therefore, considering the nature of the litigation, status of the original suit and conduct of the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned and they are sustainable. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order impugned dated 01.10.2020 in IA No.70 of 2020 in IA No.390 of 2014 in OS No.352 of 2014 on the file of the X Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar. However considering the fact that the original suit is filed in the year 2014, issues are settled long back, the Court below shall expedite the disposal of the original suit and shall make every endeavour to dispose of the original suit, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.