Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 14 (TS)

Village Inn. (India) Ltd. v. Syed Yousuf Hussain

2026-01-06

RENUKA YARA

body2026
JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Heard Sri S. Malla Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Venkat Ramana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire record. 2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellants herein/respondent Nos.1 to 4 aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in I.A No.1302 of 2024 in I.A.No.151 of 2024 in A.S.No.16 of 2016 passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, granting injunction in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/petitioners, restraining the appellants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the condone delay petition (I.A.No.151 of 2024). 3. The background facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed suit in O.S.No.2024 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judge- cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the appellants herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land consisting of Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.115/2 and Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.115/3 altogether admeasuring Ac.3.25 guntas together with three rooms corresponding to Town Survey No.1/2/part, Block–L, Ward 89 of Khairtabad Village and Mandal, Hyderabad. The said suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.06.2015. During pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not granted any temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2024 of 2009, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein preferred A.S.No.16 of 2016 on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The said appeal was dismissed for default on 06.06.2023. During pendency of the appeal also there was no temporary injunction in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. After dismissal of the appeal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed I.A.(SR)No. 157 of 2024 for restoration of the appeal with a condone delay petition in I.A.No.151 of 2024 to condone delay of 186 days in filing the I.A. for restoration of the appeal. Along with the I.A. to condone delay, I.A.No.1302 of 2024 was filed along with affidavits of third parties seeking ad interim injunction. In the said interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.1302 of 2024, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein sought ad interim injunction to restrain the appellants herein from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the condone delay application i.e. I.A.No.151 of 2024. In the said interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.1302 of 2024, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein sought ad interim injunction to restrain the appellants herein from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the condone delay application i.e. I.A.No.151 of 2024. An ex parte temporary injunction order was granted in I.A.No.1302 of 2024 vide impugned order dated 29.08.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred. 4. In grounds of appeal, the appellants have pleaded that no ad interim injunction could have been granted when an application for condone delay was filed and pending. Further, an appeal is a continuation of a suit and the procedure applicable in the suit has to be adhered to, more so when the suit has been dismissed and the appeal also was dismissed for default. Further, the relief of injunction granted in the I.A. that is restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property during pendency after the application to condone delay is beyond the scope of relief of perpetual injunction sought in the main suit and said suit has been dismissed and is challenged vide A.S.No.16 of 2016, which was dismissed for default. Further, there is misinterpretation of the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in M/s. Vinayak Conclave Pvt. Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation , AIR 1995 Calcutta 113 relied upon by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The relief granted is beyond the powers vested by law that too when the appeal has been dismissed for default. Emphasis is made on the fact that no injunction was granted in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 during pendency of the suit or during pendency of the appeal. It is emphasized that once the suit has been dismissed denying relief of grant of perpetual injunction with a finding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to prove their possession, it is erroneous that ad interim injunction was granted in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 restraining the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property during pendency of interlocutory application filed to condone delay. As such, it is contended that the impugned order passed is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 5. As such, it is contended that the impugned order passed is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the case of A. Balaiah v. Aravindanagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 1980 (1) ALT 90 (D.B.) wherein it is held that an appeal lies under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC against an ad interim injunction passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC. The same principle is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Challappan , 2000 (5) ALT 44 (SC) , wherein it is held that a party who has suffered ex parte injunction order has remedy available under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC. The chocie available is for the party to move the Appellate Court or to approach the same Court for any other relief. In this regard, it is to be noted that there is no challenge as to maintainability of a C.M.A. filed against an ad-interim order passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, vide impugned order. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not challenge the maintainability of the C.M.A. and therefore, the aforementioned citations are relevant only to the extent of supporting the case of the appellants with respect to maintainability of the C.M.A. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgment of Madras High Court in the case of P.N. Aboobucker v. K. Kunhamoo , AIR 1958 Madras 287 , wherein it is held that an interim relief granted during pendency of a suit should not be of greater scope than that would be granted if in the suit itself, after the party has established his right in the suit to that relief. The judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Haraparbati Thakurani Bije v. Ramakanta Gupta , AIR 2002 Orissa 89 , it is held that an application before trial Court for grant of injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property, the scope of appeal would be confined to the question of alienation and it cannot be expanded so as to pass order of injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the building standing on the suit land. Further, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, in the case of Kolli Butchi Koteswara Rao v. District Level Committee, Vijayawad , 2004 (3) ALD 652 , held that issue of temporary injunction which runs beyond the relief sought in the main suit is illegal. In the case of Kagitala Venkata Chalapathi Rao v. Sabarunnissa Begum , 2017 (5) ALD 174 , it is held by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad that grant of interim relief which runs beyond the scope of a suit or relief claimed in the suit is impermissible. When the relief claimed in the plaint is limited to defendants in the suit but not against the proposed party, order granting temporary injunction restraining the Sub Registrar from registering any document pertaining to schedule property cannot be sustained. 7. In the instant case, the relief sought by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the main suit is that of perpetual injunction i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 claim to be in possession of the suit schedule property and allege interference by the appellants herein and therefore, have sought perpetual injunction. During pendency of the suit in O.S.No.2024 of 2009, there was no interim injunction in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, restraining the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property. Likewise, after dismissal of the suit, when A.S.No.16 of 2016 was filed before the XXV Additional Chief Judge, Civil Court at Hyderabad, there was no interim order restraining the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property. Only after dismissal of the appeal, when interlocutory application was filed to condone delay of 186 days in filing the petition to restore the appeal, the ad interim injunction was passed against the appellants herein restraining them from alienating the suit schedule property. 8. The crux of the issue raised by the appellants is that the scope of the main suit was for grant of perpetual injunction. Likewise, the scope of the appeal was also to grant perpetual injunction. There was no issue about the alienation of suit schedule property either in the suit or the appeal i.e., the relief seeking restraint on the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property was never a subject matter of the suit or the appeal. That being the case, seeking relief against the appellants to prevent them from alienating the suit schedule property, that too when the appeal has been dismissed. That being the case, seeking relief against the appellants to prevent them from alienating the suit schedule property, that too when the appeal has been dismissed. During the interim of pendency of interlocutory application to condone delay, the relief sought far exceeds and is beyond the scope of the relief sought in the main suit and the appeal. In those circumstances, according to the learned counsel for appellants, the order passed is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 9. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in the present C.M.A with a prayer to vacate the interim order granted by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2024, wherein the operation of the impugned order was suspended. Aggrieved by the same, the application is filed to vacate the stay, alleging that the appellants are bypassing the due process of law that interim injunction can always be granted during pendency of the petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act as per judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, in the case of M/s. Vinayak Conclave P. Ltd. (cited supra) and that ex parte injunction can be granted even in the presence or absence of the opposite parties. Lastly, it is claimed that the appellants have filed a C.M.A. with unclean hands as in the interlocutory application filed to condone delay vide I.A.No.151 of 2024 in A.S.No.16 of 2016, notices were ordered several times, but the appellants have intentionally avoided to receive the notices. The intention of the appellants is to drag the proceedings and anticipating the same, I.A.No.1302 of 2024 is filed seeking injunction to restrain the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property. In the guise of the suspension order granted in the C.M.A., the appellants are making attempts to alienate the scheduled property to persons by name Neelanchal Projects and Sattava Developers. In the circumstances, even in case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 succeed in the appeal, they may not enjoy the fruits of the decree. 10. It is a point to be noted that the appellants herein did not raise any issue about maintainability of a petition seeking ad interim injunction during pendency of the interlocutory application filed seeking to condone delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the case of M/s. Vinayak Conclave Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) is not relevant. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the case of M/s. Vinayak Conclave Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) is not relevant. 11. The main issue raised by the appellants in this appeal i.e., whether the impugned order passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, in I.A.No.1302 of 2024 in I.A.No.151 of 2024 in A.S.No.16 of 2016 is beyond the scope of the relief sought in the appeal and the main suit i.e., O.S.No.2024 of 2009. For that purpose, there is a need to examine the relief sought in the main suit. The relief sought in the main suit is as follows: a) restraining the defendants 1 to 4, their men, agents or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land namely land admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.115/2 and Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.115/3 altogether admeasuring Ac.3.25 guntas corresponding to Town Survey No.1/2/part, Block–L, Ward 89 of Khairtabad Village and Mandal, Hyderabad, bounded on North - 30 feet wide road, South - 30 feet wide road and house of Shaik Wahid Ali bearing No.8-2-467/A/A, East - Banjara Hills Road No. 1 and West - 30 feet wide road. b) costs of the suit. c) to grant such a relief or reliefs as this Court has deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 12. The above relief sought is only with respect to protection of the alleged possession of respondent Nos.1 and 2 over the suit schedule property. The nature of relief sought is perpetual injunction. The said suit was filed and prosecuted without any ad interim injunction with respect to alienation until dismissal of the suit. Similarly, after the appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2016 was filed till the dismissal of said appeal for default on 06.06.2023 there was no interim injunction in the nature of preventing the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property. Only while filing the interlocutory application to condone delay, the impugned interlocutory application under appeal was filed seeking ad interim injunction i.e., to prevent the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property. As per, the judgments reported in the case of P.N. Aboobucker, Haraparbati Thakurani Bije and Kolli Butchi Koteswara Rao (all cited supra) issue of temporary injunction which runs beyond the relief of the suit is illegal. 13. As per, the judgments reported in the case of P.N. Aboobucker, Haraparbati Thakurani Bije and Kolli Butchi Koteswara Rao (all cited supra) issue of temporary injunction which runs beyond the relief of the suit is illegal. 13. In the instant case, grant of relief of restraining the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property which is beyond and distinct from the relief of perpetual injunction sought in the main suit is illegal as such said impugned order is liable to be set aside. 14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 in I.A.No.1302 of 2024 in I.A.No.151 of 2024 in A.S.No.16 of 2016 passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.