Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 353 (AP)

Syndicate Bank v. Gatta Kranthi Kumar

2023-02-09

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the orders, dtd. 3/3/2020, dismissing I.A.No.1225 of 2018 in O.S.No.382 of 2015 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Sec. 151 CPC to reject the plaint. 2. Heard Sri T. Bal Murthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Sri D. Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 3. (a) The suit in O.S.No.382 of 2015 was filed for the relief of granting compensation of Rs.50, 00, 000.00 for publishing defamatory statement as a joint tort feasor of the defendants 1 and 2 by committing civil wrong during the subsistence of the orders of status quo, dtd. 22/11/2012, granted in I.A.No.1025 of 2012 in O.S.No.1595 of 2012 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. (b) The case as per the plaintiff is briefly like this: Initially, O.S.No.1595 of 2012 was filed along with a petition in I.A.No.1025 of 2012 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC against these defendants seeking an order restraining them from proceeding further by making use of the forged and fabricated documents in respect of the suit schedule property therein pending the suit and obtained an order of status quo, dtd. 22/11/2012. Pending the said order, a notice, dtd. 23/5/2015, was issued by the 3rd defendant, i.e., Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank, informing the plaintiff that the bank intended to invoke the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act", for short). On receipt of the said notice, on 28/5/2015, the plaintiff dispatched a reply informing defendant No.3 about granting of the order of status quo. The same was received by the defendant No.3 and acknowledged it on 29/5/2015. While the matter stood thus, on 20/8/2015, defendant No.3 issued a possession notice to the plaintiff and guarantor without caring the subsisting orders. The said notice was intentionally given wide publicity exceeding his authority and with a view to cause damage to the reputation and stature of the plaintiff's family and squeeze money under the threat of causing such damage, and therefore, it is a civil wrong of defamation. The said notice was intentionally given wide publicity exceeding his authority and with a view to cause damage to the reputation and stature of the plaintiff's family and squeeze money under the threat of causing such damage, and therefore, it is a civil wrong of defamation. Therefore, the plaintiff, on 5/9/2015, got issued a notice to all the defendants calling upon them to compensate the plaintiff by paying Rs.50.00 lakhs towards the damage caused to the plaintiff and his family for the said civil wrong. (c) Defendants 2 and 3 acknowledged the receipt of the notice on 7/9/2015. The 1st defendant received the notice on 7/9/2015 and the 4th defendant received the notice on 10/9/2015, as per the online track report of the Indian Postal service. None of these defendants responded to the notices. Hence, the suit was filed. 4. The defendants filed this petition in I.A.No.1225 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and Sec. 151 CPC to reject the plaint on the grounds of (i) cause of action does not survive in view of the subsequent events, (ii) barred by law and (iii) the remedy is otherwise, as follows: "a) The cause of action for filing the present suit is publication of Sec. 13(4) notice in the newspapers on 25/8/2015 which is said to be in violation of status-quo orders passed in IA No.1025/12 in OS No.1595/2012. When OS 1595/2012 itself is dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction, the status-quo orders are automatically merged in the said judgment in OS 1595/2004 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge Court at Vijayawada and at present the alleged cause of action did not survive in view of subsequent events. Hence the suit is not maintainable in law (bound by law). b) It is now well settled legal position that a suit claiming of damages for violating status quo orders on the basis of Sec. 13(4) notice is not maintainable in law, as the jurisdiction of civil Court is ousted under Sec. 34 of Securitization Act. c) The O.S.No.1595 of 2012 was dismissed as not maintainable in view of specific remedy available u/S 17 of the Securitization Act and it is only a final adjudication that operates as res judicata to the present suit. The respondent/plaintiff can file an application u/S 17 of the Securitization Act challenging Sec. 13(4) notice. c) The O.S.No.1595 of 2012 was dismissed as not maintainable in view of specific remedy available u/S 17 of the Securitization Act and it is only a final adjudication that operates as res judicata to the present suit. The respondent/plaintiff can file an application u/S 17 of the Securitization Act challenging Sec. 13(4) notice. d) The averment in the plaint with regard to cause of action para is concerned, the plaintiff stated that defendant violated status-quo orders which caused loss of reputation to the plaintiff by issuing Sec. 13(4) notice. If any person violated status quo orders, their remedy is to file a contingent case under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX CPC but not a separate suit. Hence suit is not maintainable." 5. The plaintiff/respondent filed counter opposing the petition stating that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which leads to filing of the suit, and at this juncture, the pleadings in para No.1 and page No.2 of the plaint and the contents of document Nos.2 and 11 would provide the cause of action for maintainability of the suit. It is further stated that when there was a specific direction by a Court restraining the defendant bank in respect of the subject matter of the suit, issuing of publication violating the order provided real cause of action and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act do not have any bearing on the present suit. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. After hearing both parties, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the facts and the allegations made by the plaintiff are yet to be proved during trial, and therefore, the case of the plaintiff that the defendants got published the notice in a newspaper with a view to cause damage to the reputation of the plaintiff is yet to be decided, and therefore, the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to prove the case during trial, and thus, there is no merit in the petition to reject the plaint. 7. Having been aggrieved of the order, the present revision petition was filed. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the remedy available for the plaintiff for breach of order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and not by filing a separate suit. 7. Having been aggrieved of the order, the present revision petition was filed. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the remedy available for the plaintiff for breach of order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and not by filing a separate suit. It is further contended that the respondent/plaintiff has already taken such step in O.S.No.1595 of 2012, and therefore, the present suit is not at all maintainable. Thus, it is vehemently argued that when there is a specific provision of law providing the relief for breach of order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, a separate suit is not maintainable. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff vehemently contended that ground can be raised in the suit and decided, but the plaint cannot be rejected on that ground. He supported the order impugned in the revision. Further, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Others, AIR 2003 SC 3044 . in support of his argument that the order of a trial Court cannot be easily interfered with by exercising the authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and since there is no illegality, irregularity or error apparent on the record, the order impugned need not be interfered with. He further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries Private Limited, AIR 1997 SC 1240 . wherein it was held that violation of an order passed without having jurisdiction is punishable under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX CPC and submitted that even if such an order is found to be passed without jurisdiction, if the violation is made during subsistence of the order, it amounts to violation and is punishable under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX CPC. In this regard, he further placed reliance on a decision of Madras High Court in Century Flour Mills Ltd. S. Suppiah and others, AIR 1975 Mad 270 . In this regard, he further placed reliance on a decision of Madras High Court in Century Flour Mills Ltd. S. Suppiah and others, AIR 1975 Mad 270 . wherein it was held that the inherent powers of a Court under Sec. 151 CPC are wide enough to deal with the violation of order of stay or injunction and that as a matter of judicial policy, Court should guard against itself being stultified in circumstances like this by holding that it is powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the Court's orders. 10. The question before this Court is not whether publication of notice during the period of subsistence of the order of status-quo amounts to violation of the said order and is punishable either under Order XXXIX Rule 2A or by exercise of inherent powers under Sec. 151 CPC or any other provision of law. 11. Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC provided penal consequences of disobedience or breach of an order of injunction granted under Rules 1 or 2 therein. The said provision has given discretion to the Court which granted injunction to order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2A provides that no attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. 12. Therefore, it is clear that though the Code of Civil Procedure is basically a procedural law, this Rule has provided a substantial right of remedy of compensation for breach or violation of the order passed under the Rules in the same Order in the Code. Moreover, it is not said to be by way of a separate suit, though suit is not specifically prohibited, but by filing an application under the said provision before the Court which passed the said order or Court to which it was transferred as indicted therein. 13. Moreover, it is not said to be by way of a separate suit, though suit is not specifically prohibited, but by filing an application under the said provision before the Court which passed the said order or Court to which it was transferred as indicted therein. 13. In the present case, admittedly, the plaintiff herein has wanted that remedy, but could not get the fruits fructified therein. If at all, the plaintiff is not satisfied with the result, the matter could have been carried further. On the other hand, a fresh suit is filed for the very same cause of action and the plaintiff contends that the suit is maintainable. The trial Court felt that the facts and allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint are to be proved during trial. However, the fact remains that a separate suit for the same relief cannot be laid. As such, there is no question of providing an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence to get the relief pending the suit. Since the suit is not maintainable, the plaint needs to be rejected. Therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dtd. 3/3/2020, passed in I.A.No.1225 of 2018 in O.S.No.382 of 2015. Consequently, I.A.No.1225 of 2018 shall stand allowed and the plaint is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.