Telangana High Court
Sri. M. Vishnu Chaitanya vs Sri Garine Amara Laxminarayana on 28 January, 2022
Author: A. Rajasheker Reddy
Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.2100 of 2021
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dt.07.12.2021 passed in IA.No.299/2020 in OS.No.114/2020 by the Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District, wherein and whereby the Court below has granted status quo. Heard Sri K.Mohan, learned counsel for petitioners who submits that the trial Court issued notice to all the respondents and that the respondents 6 and 7 in IA.No.299/2020 who are petitioners herein have also filed counters. When the notices were awaited against respondents Nos. 1, 2, 8 to 11 in the IA, the Court below passed order of status quo without considering the counters of the petitioners herein/respondent 6 and 7 in IA and without considering the merits of the matter, as such, the impugned order is patently erroneous and requires to be set aside by exercising power of superintendence under Article-227 of the Constitution of India and it is a fit case where this Court has to entertain the revision by-passing the remedy of appeal as the impugned order is patently erroneous on the face of it. On the other hand Sri D.Vijay Kumar appearing for respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs submits that after filing of suit, the defendant No.2 alienated the property to the proposed respondent No.14, as such, a memo is filed on 07.12.2021, and basing on the same, the impugned order is passed. By relying on 2 the Judgment of the Apex Court in A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S.Chellappan and others 2000 (7) SCC 695 he submits that when the petitioner has effective alternate remedy of moving an application for vacating the injunction as well as for preferring the appeal against the impugned order, this Court should not ordinarily entertain the revision.
In this case a reading of the impugned order goes to show that initially notices were ordered to all the respondents in IA.No.299 of 2020 and notices are awaited against respondents 1, 2, 8 to 11 as per the docket order dt.07.12.2021. It is also an admitted fact that the revision petitioners/respondents 6 and 7 in IA have filed counters in the IA and at that stage, the court below passed the impugned order. Both the counsel read the averments in the plaint which goes to show that the allegations against each of the respondents is not common. There are no common assertions or common allegations and common plot numbers against all the respondents in the suit. Since the injunction that was sought is not to alienate the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit, the Court below before passing the impugned order against the petitioners herein should have considered the averments made by the revision petitioners/respondents 6 and 7 in their counter affidavits or should have heard the counsel for respondents 6 and 7. But, the order does not indicate the same. Since the revision is directed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order only to their extent of land, since the other respondents in the IA are not before this 3 Court, and since the impugned order is not a speaking order, this Court is of the opinion that the same requires to be set aside against the present revision petitioners only. More so, the counsel for revision petitioners undertakes that the revision petitioners will not alienate their respective plots till IA.No.application is disposed of by the trial Court. There is no doubt about the principle that ordinarily this Court will not entertain the revision under Article 227 when petitioners have effective alternate remedy. In the decisions cited by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs also it is indicated that ordinarily this Court will not entertain revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when they have effective alternate remedy. However, where orders are patently illegal and without jurisdiction and when the order is in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court can exercise its discretion and entertain the same. In the present case also the trial Court issued notices to the respondents and the respondents 6 and 7/revision petitioners herein have also filed counter affidavits and notices are awaited against some of the respondents. But, the Court below without considering the counter affidavits, passed the impugned order which according to me is in violation of principles of natural justice, otherwise the purpose of issuing notices will have no sense. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of revision petitioners on condition that the respondents 6 and 7/revision petitioners shall file an 4 undertaking before the Court below that they will not alienate their respective extents of land out of the subject property till disposal of the IA, and the Court below is directed to dispose of the IA.No.299/2020 in OS.No.114/2020 against the present petitioners within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order will not preclude the trial Court from deciding the IA on merits against other respondents if they are served. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Dated:28.01.2022 tk 5 HUMBLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2100 of 2021 Dated:28.01.2022 tk