Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 68 (TS)

Bonthu Guruvareddy v. Lachireddy Poornachand

2025-02-24

N.TUKARAMJI, P.SAM KOSHY

body2025
JUDGMENT : P. Sam Koshy, J. Since the issue in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. Heard Mr. D.V. Sitaram Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. These are two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the appellants challenging the common order dated 31.07.2024 in I.A.Nos.552 and 553 of 2024 in O.S.No.110 of 2023, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy. 4. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants before the Trial Court. For the sake of facility, the parties are hereinafter referred to with their rank before the Trial Court. 5. Vide the impugned common order, the Trial Court has allowed the petitions filed by defendant No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘ CPC ’) i.e. I.A.Nos.552 & 553 of 2024. As a consequence, the interim injunction order of status quo passed on 19.05.2023 by the then Vacation Court was set aside. It is this vacation of the interim injunction granted on 19.05.2023 of which the plaintiffs are aggrieved of; leading to filing of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 6. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are that the plaintiffs filed an original suit for declaration of title and for cancellation of few sale deeds along with the prayer for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule A, B and C properties. Along with the suit, I.A.Nos.269 & 270 of 2023 were filed seeking for injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit schedule property. The prayer was also seeking a restraint order against the defendants from interfering with their possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. 7. While addressing the Court so far as grant of temporary injunction is concerned, the plaintiffs made a statement before the Trial Court that in another suit in respect of the same property, there is already an order of status quo in force granted by the concerned Court and therefore prayed for grant of injunction so far as maintaining status quo in the instant original suit as well. The Trial Court, vide order dated 19.05.2023 believing the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs of there being another injunction order already in force in another connected suit, was pleased to grant the order of status quo. Subsequently, defendant No.1 filed two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC before the High Court challenging the order dated 19.05.2023. The High Court initially was pleased to suspend the order of status quo granted by the Trial Court on 19.05.2023; however the defendant No.1 withdrew the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeals with a liberty to agitate his rights before the Trial Court itself. After withdrawal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the plaintiffs again approached the Trial Court and got the earlier order dated 19.05.2023 restored whereby the status quo was granted, vide order dated 01.04.2024. 8. It is at this juncture that the two Interlocutory Applications i.e. I.A.Nos.552 and 553 of 2024 were filed by defendant No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for setting aside the interim injunction order granted on 19.05.2023. Being a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC , it was the contention of defendant No.1 who had filed the said petitions that the interim order of injunction was obtained by material misrepresentation and suppression of facts, and therefore, the injunction order of status quo obtained by misrepresentation is liable to be set aside. 9. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court vide the impugned common order had allowed the two Interlocutory Applications accepting the contention of defendant No.1 that there was material misrepresentation made by the plaintiffs while obtaining the injunction order dated 19.05.2023 from the then Vacation Court and accordingly set aside the same. 10. The point for consideration before this Court is “whether there was sufficient material made available before the Trial Court for accepting the defendant No.1’s petition under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for setting aside the interim injunction order dated 19.05.2023?” 11. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that defendant No.1 himself had challenged the order dated 01.04.2024 restoring the earlier injunction order dated 19.05.2023 vide Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.235 and 236 of 2024 and both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stood dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 30.04.2024. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to have further considered the petitions filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC once when the order has been subjected to challenge and have got the seal of affirmation from the High Court. 12. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Trial Court also failed to appreciate the fact that the order of the High Court dismissing the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals was also subjected to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P.(C) Nos.12103-12104 of 2024 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed these S.L.Ps. vide order dated 27.05.2024 directing the Trial Court to decide the application filed for temporary injunction within a period of six (06) weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the defendant No.1 was not able to make out a strong case even before the Hon’ble Supreme Court calling for an interference to the order of status quo granted by the Trial Court. 13. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the defendant No.1 in fact had no claim whatsoever over the suit schedule property and that the very claim raised over the suit schedule property relying upon an Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) that was issued in the year 1982, is clearly barred by limitation and the suit filed by the defendants i.e. O.S.No.51 of 2020 is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. Ignoring this fact, the Trial Court has vacated the interim protection granted earlier. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the impugned common order under challenge in the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are those which have been passed exercising the powers conferred upon the Trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC . A bare perusal of the impugned common order would clearly reflect that the Trial Court had threadbare considered the petitions filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC and the entire factual gambit of the case and then found that the interim injunction obtained by the plaintiffs at the first instance on 19.05.2023 was with material misrepresentation. 15. A bare perusal of the impugned common order would clearly reflect that the Trial Court had threadbare considered the petitions filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC and the entire factual gambit of the case and then found that the interim injunction obtained by the plaintiffs at the first instance on 19.05.2023 was with material misrepresentation. 15. Referring to the interim injunction order dated 19.05.2023, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that reading of the said order itself would show that the plaintiffs in the course of their submissions on the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC made an incorrect statement that there was already an order of status quo granted in the connected suit i.e. O.S.No.51 of 2020. Therefore, a similar order of status quo was sought for in the instant suit and which was granted by the Trial Court believing the statement made of an order of status quo already having been passed in the connected suit pertaining to the same suit schedule property. 16. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, when it was found that there was misrepresentation made and the interim injunction having been obtained by making an incorrect and false statement; the finding arrived at by the Trial Court in the impugned common order cannot be found fault with, nor can it be said to be in any manner contrary to law or for that matter contrary to facts. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the instant two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 17. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, what is firstly to be appreciated is that the instant two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are one which have been filed under the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC and since these are appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC , the power vested upon this Court is confined to the provisions under which the two Interlocutory Applications were filed and the impugned common order being passed on these Interlocutory Applications. In other words, in the course of exercising powers under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC , this Bench would have to only look into the correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court testing it within the framework of the provisions under which two Interlocutory Applications were filed; which in the instant cases are petitions under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC . 18. Undisputedly, there was an order of injunction granted by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.05.2023 on a petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC i.e. an order directing to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property. Though the order dated 19.05.2023 was put to challenge by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.255 and 256 of 2023 and there was also an order staying effect and operation of the order dated 19.05.2023, however, subsequently the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals got disposed vide order dated 07.02.2024 granting liberty to pursue the remedies before the Trial Court itself. Meanwhile, after the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stood disposed of by the High Court, the Trial Court restored the interim injunction order dated 19.05.2023 vide a fresh order dated 01.04.2024. This order was tested both before the High Court as also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the details of which are referred in the earlier paragraphs. Before both the Courts, defendant No.1 did not get any success and he was permitted to agitate the case before the Trial Court itself. 19. The rejection of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before the High Court as also the dismissal of the S.L.Ps. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court prima facie goes to show that defendant No.1 did not impress upon the two Courts so far as the illegality or perversity in the order dated 19.05.2023 or for that matter in the order dated 01.04.2024. It was thereafter that the Interlocutory Applications were filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC before the Trial Court highlighting the aspect of misrepresentation. 20. What is necessary to be appreciated is that before the Interlocutory Applications under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC were filed, the order of injunction dated 19.05.2023 and 01.04.2024 were already subjected to challenge before the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but neither of the two Courts could find any error with the aforesaid order of the Trial Court. In the said circumstances, was it justified for the Trial Court to have subjected the order dated 19.05.2023 to be re-tested now invoking the provisions under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC . 21. The grounds raised in the said Interlocutory Applications were already available with the defendant No.1 at the first instance itself when he subjected these orders firstly before the High Court and secondly before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Another point to be considered is since the order dated 19.05.2023 and subsequently the order dated 01.04.2023 were honored and the parties in between had maintained status quo, was it really necessary for the Trial Court to have vacated the injunction order passed so long ago. Another aspect which is reflected from the proceedings and the pleadings available in the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals is that the admitted disputes on the suit schedule property between the plaintiffs and the defendants of their being already a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2020 having been filed, coupled with fact that in the past there has been multiple sale of the suit schedule property or part of the suit schedule property to multiple persons. In the teeth of all these developments and the multiple sale of the suit schedule property of part of the suit schedule property having taken place to avoid further damage to the suit schedule property, so also to avoid further complications, the Trial Court ought not to have vacated the interim injunction where the interim order was only to the extent of directing the parties to maintain status quo. 22. In the opinion of this Bench, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, particularly the series of litigations that took place post 19.05.2023 be it either by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal or by way of S.L.Ps., or by way of yet another petition before the Trial Court etc. etc., this Court is of the firm view that the order of status quo granted by the Trial Court was the most innocuous order which would cause any prejudice to either of the parties so far as the title and possession of the suit schedule property is concerned. etc., this Court is of the firm view that the order of status quo granted by the Trial Court was the most innocuous order which would cause any prejudice to either of the parties so far as the title and possession of the suit schedule property is concerned. Though there does seem to be some material available to show that there was in fact some misrepresentation made by the plaintiffs in the course of obtaining the interim injunction on 19.05.2023; but considering the subsequent developments that have transpired between the parties, firstly at the High Court level and secondly at the Hon’ble Supreme Court level, we are of the firm view that the Trial Court ought not to have vacated the interim injunction and should have rather proceeded to decide the suit at the earliest. 23. For the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Bench is of the firm view that the impugned common order passed by the Trial Court dated 31.07.2024 is arbitrary and also bad in law for the reason that the order dated 19.05.2023 was already subjected to challenge before the High Court as also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with no success to the defendants. Accordingly, we allow the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeals to the extent of directing both the parties i.e. the plaintiffs as also the defendants to maintain status quo so far as the suit schedule property is concerned. However, the Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the suit and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible without any further unnecessary adjournments and delays. 24. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.