Telangana High Court
Smt.Rani Suhasini vs Md.Abdul Mateen on 19 June, 2023
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
C.R.P.No.855 of 2023
ORDER
The present revision is filed aggrieved by the order dated 23-02-2023 in I.A.No.722 of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Karimnagar.
2. This Court, by order dated 28-03-2023, has granted stay of all further proceedings for a period of four weeks and directed the petitioners to take out personal notice to the respondent and file proof of service.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/defendants Mr.Vedula Srinivas submits that they have already taken out notice and the same was served on the respondent and they have also filed a memo in support of the proof of service. He submits that earlier, the respondent/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.140 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents from changing the physical features or modifying the suit schedule property and the same was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 30-11-2021. He submits that the said order was not assailed by the plaintiff and the same has become final. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that now the present application is filed by the plaintiff seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and stated that the defendants are transforming the suit schedule property 2 LK, J C.R.P.No.855 of 2023 into commercial use with ulterior motive to evade or escape the performance of contract. He further submits that the defendants have filed a counter affidavit and the Court below without considering all these aspects has allowed the application observing that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in the light of dismissal of the earlier I.A., where the injunction that is sought by the plaintiff restraining the defendants from alienating the nature of the suit schedule property was dismissed, now for the same relief, another I.A., was filed and the Court below ought not to have allowed the said I.A.
4. The revision petitioners before this Court are defendants in the suit. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 18-11-2008 and for recovery of possession. When the suit is filed for specific performance and recovery of possession and when the earlier I.A., for interim injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, again the present application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property cannot be maintained. Further, just because no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, the application cannot be ordered unless and until there is a justifiable reason for allowing the same.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 23-02-2023 in I.A.No.722 of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2019. No order as to costs.
3 LK, J C.R.P.No.855 of 2023
6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ SMT LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 19th June, 2023.
sj