Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 485 (TS)

B. Lalitha Devi v. Lakshman

2022-07-28

A.ABHISHEK REDDY

body2022
ORDER: 1. Questioning the docket order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, in I.A.No.486 of 2022 in I.A.No.1226 of 2021 in O.S.No.138 of 2016, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have filed O.S.No.138 of 2016 for grant of perpetual injunction by way of restraining the defendants, their men, agents, henchmen and any other person claiming under the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and during pendency of the said suit, interim injunction order was in subsistence and the same was made absolute vide order 27.02.2017 in I.A.No.705 of 2016 in O.S.No.138 of 2016, but, thereafter, the suit was dismissed for default on 01.12.2021. That immediately thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.1226 of 2021 for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 01.12.2021 and restoring the suit to file. The petitioners have also filed I.A.No.486 of 2022 seeking interim injunction order by way of restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment pending disposal of I.A.No.1226 of 2021 filed for restoration of the main suit. It is stated that the lower Court has not been passing any order in the above I.A. seeking temporary injunction and taking advantage of the same, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Reboti Ray v. Sashi Kanta Budhia @ Agarwal, (2006) 3 GAUHATI LAW REPORTS 42 and prayed this Court to give a suitable direction to the lower Court regarding maintainability of I.A.No.486 of 2022 filed for passing of interim injunction order pending disposal of I.A.No.1226 of 2021 filed for restoration of the suit. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition and has stated that without there being any cause of action, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel has stated that the lower Court has issued notices in I.A.No.486 of 2022 and posted the matter to 06.06.2022 for filing of the counters and thereafter, the same is being adjourned from time to time. The learned counsel has stated that the lower Court has issued notices in I.A.No.486 of 2022 and posted the matter to 06.06.2022 for filing of the counters and thereafter, the same is being adjourned from time to time. It is stated across the bar that I.A.No.1226 of 2021 filed for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for default, and I.A.No.486 of 2022 filed for grant of interim injunction orders, are posted for advancing the arguments on 29.07.2022. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed this Court to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Having regard to the fact that the applications filed by the petitioners are coming up for advancing the arguments on 29.07.2022, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits or demerits of the case and is confining itself to the question as to whether an application seeking temporary injunction orders pending adjudication of the application filed for restoration of the suit is maintainable or not. 5. Admittedly, pending the suit, the interim injunction orders were passed in favour of the plaintiffs and the same were made absolute vide order dated 27.02.2017, but, subsequently, due to the order of dismissal of the suit for default, passed by the Court below on 01.12.2021, the interim injunction orders earlier granted have come to an end and not in subsistence. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, (1985) 3 SCC 53 ; Bankim Chandra v. Chandi Prasad, AIR 1956 Pat 271 and Tavvala Veeraswami v. Pulim Ramanna, AIR 1935 Mad 365 held that the orders which were passed prior to the dismissal of the suit will automatically get revived, once the suit is restored to file. But, the question before this Court as to whether the temporary injunction order, pending adjudication of the interlocutory application filed for restoration of the suit, can be granted or not, has not been dealt with in those judgments. 7. It is pertinent to extract the provisions of Section 94 CPC, Section 151 CPC and also Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which read as under: Section 94 CPC: Supplemental proceedings. 7. It is pertinent to extract the provisions of Section 94 CPC, Section 151 CPC and also Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which read as under: Section 94 CPC: Supplemental proceedings. In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed,- (a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison; (b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property; (c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold; (d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property; (e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. Section 151 CPC: 151. Saving of inherent powers of Court:-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC: 1. Section 151 CPC: 151. Saving of inherent powers of Court:-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC: 1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.-Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise- (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to 4 [defrauding] his creditors, (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property 1 [or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. 2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.-(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment. apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained, of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right. (2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit. 8. (2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit. 8. A reading of the provision of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC reveals that pending adjudication of the suit, the Court has got ample powers to grant temporary injunction order for the reasons enumerated therein and the Court is satisfied with the prima facie title, possession of the plaintiffs and likely to cause irreparable loss/injury, if injunction orders are not passed. Admittedly, the temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC can be granted only when the suit is pending before the Court and admittedly, in this case, there is no suit pending before the Court as on date, therefore, no order can be passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC till the suit is restored to file. 9. Now, coming to the provisions of Sections 94 and 151 of CPC, more particularly, Section 94(c) of CPC, which reads as under: 94. Supplemental proceedings. In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed,- (a) xxxx (b) xxxx (c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold; (d) xxxx (e) xxxx 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 held as under: “On the first question it is argued for the reliant that the provisions of Cl.(c) of S.94, P.C. make it clear that interim injunctions can be issued only if a provision for their issue is made under the rules, as they provide that a Court may, if it is so prescribed, grant temporary injunctions in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, that the word prescribed’ according to S. 2, means ‘prescribed by rules’, and that rr. 1 and 2 of O. 39 lay down certain circumstances in which a temporary injunction may be issued.” 11. 1 and 2 of O. 39 lay down certain circumstances in which a temporary injunction may be issued.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various Courts while interpreting the power under Section 151 CPC have held that when no specific provision is there, under which, the relief can be granted, then, the Courts have ample powers under Section 151 CPC to pass orders for doing substantial justice to the parties and in the interest of justice. 12. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padma Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 218 hereunder. “14. The inherent powers of the Court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on be Court by the Code. They are supplementary to those powers and therefore it must be held that the Court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the exercise of these powers is not in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the legislature.” 13. Therefore, it has to be necessarily understood that the Courts have inherent powers, which can be exercised, to advance the cause of justice and not allow it to be defeated. 14. Therefore, both under Sections 94(c) and 151 of CPC, the Courts have got ample power to pass any orders in the interest of justice. Such powers are in addition to the powers conferred under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and can be exercised independently. There is nothing in the CPC that puts any fetters on the power of the Courts from passing any order to meet the ends of justice and do substantial justice to the parties in exercise of the inherent powers. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below is having necessary powers to pass orders in I.A.No.486 of 2022 filed for grant of temporary injunction pending adjudication of I.A.No.1226 of 2021 filed for restoration of the suit, which has been dismissed for default. 15. With the above, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. The trial Court is directed to pass orders in I.A.No.486 of 2022 on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible. 16. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.