Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. An interesting question as to whether a civil revision petition filed under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an ex parte interim order passed by the High Court during Dasara vacation on an application under S. 33 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') is maintainable arises in these petitions.

2. The revision petitioner in both the petitions is a Government of India under.

taking. On 25-10-84, it entered into a contract for construction of civil works in the blast furnace zone of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant with the respondent-Company of value of Rupees seventeen crores and odd. In the execution of the said contract, some disputes arose between the parties, which were referred to arbitrator. When the proceedings were pending before the arbitrator, the petitioner terminated the said contract, which was challenged by the respondent in suits filed in the court of District Munsif, Visakhapatnam seeking injunction not to terminate the contract and other incidental reliefs. The respondent also prayed for temporary injunction against the petitioner restraining it from encashing the bank guarantees. The learned Dist. Munsif granted ex parte interim injunction. While the matter stood thus, the respondent filed C.M.P. No. 16290 to 16294 of 1988 in this court during Dasara Vacation of 1988 under Section 33 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 on 21-10-1988, interim order was granted by the High Court in C.M.P. No. 16292 of 1988 restraining the petitioner from interfering with the removal of the machineryand material by the respondent. In C.M.P. No. 16293 of 1988 interim injunction was granted restraining the petitioner from awarding the pending works under the said contract pending final measurement of the work and in C.M.P. No. 16294 of 1988 interim injunction was granted restraining the petitioner from encashing the bank guarantees. After the reopening of the Courts, the C.M.Ps. were transmitted to the court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. C.M.P. No. 16290 of 1988 was renumbered as O.P. No. 456 of 1988, C.M.P. 16293 of 1988 was renumbered as I.A. No. 643/88 in O.P. No. 456/88 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, C.M.P. 16292/88 was renumbered as 1. A. No. 642/88. C.R.P. 3775/88 is directed against the order dated 21-10-1988 passed by the High Court in C.M.P. 16293 of 1988 (I.A. No. 643 of 1988 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam) and C.R.P. 3776 of 1988 is directed against the ex parte interim injunction order dated 21-10- 1988 passed in C.M.P. No. 16293 of 1988 (I.A. 642 of 1988 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam). On 2-12-1988 these Civil Revision Petitions were admitted and interim orders granted by this court on 21-10-1988 were suspended in C.M.P. Nos. 18508 and 18509 of 1988. The respondents filed petitions praying to vacate the interim suspension granted by the High Court on 2-12-1988. Though the CMPs were posted for hearing, both the learned counsel for the parties-represented that the arguments in the CMPs. are the same as in the C.R.Ps. and requested that the CRPs. themselves may be disposed of. Accordingly, the C.R.Ps. are being disposed of.

18. To appreciate this contention, let us read the orders passed by the High Court in the CMPs. On 21-10-1988, which are extracted here.

"That an injunction do issue restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the petitioner's removal of the material and machinery belonging to the petitioner kept at the site by the petitioner carrying on the work, pending further orders on the said OP (SR) 56660/88 by ...the said Court of the Sub ordinate Judge Visakhapatnam.
That an injunction do issue restraining the respondent from awarding the pending works in respect of the contract entered into with the petitioner pending final measurement of the work executed so far by the petitioners pending further orders on the said OP (SR) 56660/88 by the said Court of the Subordinate Judge Visakapatnam".

--here the contingency being passing of order on the application by the Subordinate Judge Visakhapatnam. On passing orders on the petition by the Subordinate Judge the interim order of the High Court automatically conies to an end. Just as an interim order "interim injunction for one month", comes to an end on the expiry of one month, so also an interim order "pending further orders on the said O.P. by the said Court of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam" comes to an end on passing of order on the application by the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. In passing orders on the application of a party after it is transmitted to his Court, the Subordinate Judge Visakhapatnam will neither be revising nor reconsidering the interim order of the High Court but would be passing appropriate orders after hearing both parties in conformity with the order passed by the High Court. It is not disputed that but for the adjournment of the lower courts for Dassara Vacation, the Principal Subordinate Judge would have entertained the case and passed appropriate orders. By virtue of S. 33 of the Act during vacation, the High Court received the C.M.Ps. and granted interim injunction pending further orders on it by the Principal Subordinate Judge. It therefore follows that the trial Court is free to pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties. In Rama Rao's case (supra) against the order of the Vacation Judge, one appeal was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and another appeal was filed in the High Court. On an objection regarding maintainability of the appeal in the High Court the learned Judge on interpretation of sub-sec. (6) of S. 32, held that the appeal in High Court is maintainable. Having regard to the deeming provision in S. 32(5) it was not in dispute that the order passed by the vacation Judge shall be deemed to be the order passed by the Court concerned. The question was not whether the concerned Court could pass an order different from the one passed by the Vacation Judge but whether against the order of the Vacation Judge an appeal lies to the Sub-Court or the High Court?