1 Revised REVISED ITEM NO.601 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9730-9731/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/03/2015 in CRPMP No. 1290/2015,20/03/2015 in CRPMP No. 1394/2015,13/03/2015 in CRP No. 970/2015,20/03/2015 in CRP No. 970/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) K. KOTESWARA RAO Petitioner(s) VERSUS SUN TRADING CORPORATION REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief) Date : 31/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Annam D. N. Rao,Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Vaishali R., Adv. Ms. Neelam Jain, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. G. Swati Pathgotri, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Prasad, Sr. Adv. Ms. C. K. Sucharita,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Taken on Board. The respondent as plaintiff instituted a suit No. 309 of 2011 seeking certain reliefs. During the
2 pendency of the Suit, the learned Trial Judge passed an interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Eventually, after evidence was brought on record, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the Suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Judge, the plaintiff preferred an appeal being A.S.No. 45 of 2015. In the said appeal I.A. No. 223 of 2015 was filed. Learned XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada on 11 th March, 2015 passed the following order in the said I.A.: “Both counsel reported ready. Due to some personal reasons I addressed a letter to the District Judge Court Machlipatnam to transfer the entire case record in this appeal including this IA, to any other competent court from the file of this court to any other court. I informed the said fact to both counsel in the open Court. Adjourn this petition on 23/3/15.” The High Court on 13 th March, 2015 entertaining a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, passed the following order: “It is represented that all through pending the suit, there was interim injunction. Hence, there shall be interim injunction, as prayed for, pending further
3 orders.” After the said order was passed, an application under Section 151 of the CPC was filed seeking police help to put the respondent in possession. The High Court passed the following order: “Having regard to the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, there shall be interrim direction as prayed for.” We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel and Mr. S.S. Prasad, learned senior counsel for the respondents. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court should not have passed the aforesaid in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction when there was no interim order or refusal or declaration to pass an order of injunction. Such an order was unwarranted. In our considered view, as an order of injunction was in force before the Trial Judge during the pendency of the Suit cause of justice would be best subserved if the learned District Judge, Vijayawada takes up the application for injunction filed by the appellant in appeal, that is I A. No. 223 of 2015 in A.S. No. 45 of 2015 and dispose of the same within six weeks from today. We, as an ad interim measure, direct for maintenance of status quo existing as on today. The Civil Revision Petition No. 970 of 2015 shall be deemed to have been
4 disposed of. The appellate court shall hear the matter of injunction within the parameters for grant of injunction in accordance with law without being influenced by any order passed by any Court. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case as the direction is issued totally as on ad interim measure. The special leave petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. (Neeta) (H.S. Parasher) Sr. P.A. Court Master
5 ITEM NO.601 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9730-9731/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/03/2015 in CRPMP No. 1290/2015,20/03/2015 in CRPMP No. 1394/2015,13/03/2015 in CRP No. 970/2015,20/03/2015 in CRP No. 970/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) K. KOTESWARA RAO Petitioner(s) VERSUS SUN TRADING CORPORATION REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief) Date : 31/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Annam D. N. Rao,Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Vaishali R., Adv. Ms. Neelam Jain, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. G. Swati Pathgotri, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Prasad, Sr. Adv. Ms. C. K. Sucharita,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Taken on Board. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted a suit No. 309 of 2011 seeking certain reliefs. During the pendency of the Suit, the learned Trial Judge passed an
6 interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Eventually, after evidence was brought on record, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the Suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Judge, the defendant preferred the appeal in Suit No. 45 of 2015. In the said appeal I.A. No. 223 of 2015 was filed. Learned XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada on 11 th March, 2015 passed the following order in the said I.A.: “Both counsel reported ready. Due to some personal reasons I addressed a letter to the District Judge Court Machlipatnam to transfer the entire case record in this appeal including this IA, to any other competent court from the file of this court to any other court. I informed the said fact to both counsel in the open Court. Adjourn this petition on 23/3/15.” The High Court on 13 th March, 2015 entertaining a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, passed the following order: “It is represented that all through pending the suit, there was interim injunction. Hence, there shall be interim injunction, as prayed for, pending further orders.”
7 After the said order was passed, an application under Section 151 of the CPC was filed seeking police help to put the respondent in possession. The High Court passed the following order: “Having regard to the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, there shall be interrim direction as prayed for.” We have heard learned senior counsel Mr. Shyam Divan for the petitioner and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel and Mr. S.S. Prasad for the respondent. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court should not have passed the said order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction when there was no interim order or refusal or declaration to pass an order of injunction. Such an order was unwarranted. In our considered view, as an order of injunction was in force before the Trial Judge during the pendency of the Suit cause of justice would be subserved if the learned District Judge, Vijayawada takes up the application for injunction filed by the appellant in appeal, that is l A.S. No. 45 of 2015 and dispose of the same within six weeks from today. We direct for maintenance of status quo as on today as an ad interim arrangement. The revision pending in the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 970 of 2015 shall be deemed to have been disposed of. The appellate
8 court shall hear the matter of injunction within the parameters for grant of injunction in accordance with law without being influenced by any order passed by any Court. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case as the direction is issued totally as on ad interim measure. The special leave petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. (Neeta) (H.S. Parasher) Sr. P.A. Court Master
tc 1 Revised REVISED ITEM NO.601 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9730-9731/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/03/2015 in CRPMP No. 1290/2015,20/03/2015 in CRPMP No. 1394/2015,13/03/2015 in CRP No. 970/2015,20/03/2015 in CRP No. 970/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) K. KOTESWARA RAO Petitioner(s) VERSUS SUN TRADING CORPORATION REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief) Date : 31/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Annam D. N. Rao,Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Vaishali R., Adv. Ms. Neelam Jain, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. G. Swati Pathgotri, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Prasad, Sr. Adv. Ms. C. K. Sucharita,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingSignature Not Verified O R D E RDigitally signed byNeeta SapraDate: 2015.04.0616:38:17 IST Taken on Board.Reason: The respondent as plaintiff instituted a suit No. 309 of 2011 seeking certain reliefs. During the 2pendency of the Suit, the learned Trial Judge passed aninterim order of injunction restraining the defendantsfrom disturbing in the peaceful possession of the
plaintiff. Eventually, after evidence was brought onrecord, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the Suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed bylearned Trial Judge, the plaintiff preferred an appealbeing A.S.No. 45 of 2015. In the said appeal I.A. No. 223of 2015 was filed. Learned XIV Additional District Judge,Vijayawada on 11th March, 2015 passed the following orderin the said I.A.: "Both counsel reported ready. Due to some personal reasons I addressed a letter to the District Judge Court Machlipatnam to transfer the entire case record in this appeal including this IA, to any other competent court from the file of this court to any other court. I informed the said fact to both counsel in the open Court. Adjourn this petition on 23/3/15." The High Court on 13th March, 2015 entertaining arevision petition under Section 115 of the Code of CivilProcedure, passed the following order: "It is represented that all through pending the suit, there was interim injunction. Hence, there shall be interim injunction, as prayed for, pending further 3 orders." After the said order was passed, an applicationunder Section 151 of the CPC was filed seeking policehelp to put the respondent in possession. The High Courtpassed the following order: "Having regard to the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, there shall be interrim direction as prayed for." We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan learned seniorcounsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learnedsenior counsel and Mr. S.S. Prasad, learned seniorcounsel for the respondents. We are of the consideredopinion that the High Court should not have passed theaforesaid in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction when
there was no interim order or refusal or declaration topass an order of injunction. Such an order wasunwarranted. In our considered view, as an order ofinjunction was in force before the Trial Judge during thependency of the Suit cause of justice would be bestsubserved if the learned District Judge, Vijayawada takesup the application for injunction filed by the appellantin appeal, that is I A. No. 223 of 2015 in A.S. No. 45 of2015 and dispose of the same within six weeks from today. We, as an ad interim measure, direct for maintenanceof status quo existing as on today. The Civil RevisionPetition No. 970 of 2015 shall be deemed to have been 4disposed of. The appellate court shall hear the matterof injunction within the parameters for grant ofinjunction in accordance with law without beinginfluenced by any order passed by any Court. We make it clear that we have not expressed anyopinion on the merits of the case as the direction isissued totally as on ad interim measure. The special leave petitions are disposed of. Noorder as to costs. (Neeta) (H.S. Parasher) Sr. P.A. Court Master 5ITEM NO.601 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).9730-9731/2015(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/03/2015in CRPMP No. 1290/2015,20/03/2015 in CRPMP No.1394/2015,13/03/2015 in CRP No. 970/2015,20/03/2015 in CRP No.970/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Hyderabad forthe State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh)K. KOTESWARA RAO Petitioner(s) VERSUS
SUN TRADING CORPORATION REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedjudgment and interim relief)Date : 31/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Annam D. N. Rao,Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Vaishali R., Adv. Ms. Neelam Jain, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. G. Swati Pathgotri, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Prasad, Sr. Adv. Ms. C. K. Sucharita,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Taken on Board. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted a suit No. 309 of 2011 seeking certain reliefs. During the pendency of the Suit, the learned Trial Judge passed an 6interim order of injunction restraining the defendantsfrom peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Eventually,after evidence was brought on record, the learned TrialJudge dismissed the Suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed bylearned Trial Judge, the defendant preferred the appeal inSuit No. 45 of 2015. In the said appeal I.A. No. 223 of2015 was filed. Learned XIV Additional District Judge,Vijayawada on 11th March, 2015 passed the following orderin the said I.A.: "Both counsel reported ready. Due to some personal reasons I addressed a letter to the District Judge Court Machlipatnam to transfer the entire case record in this appeal including this IA, to any other competent court from the file of this court to any other court. I informed the said fact to both counsel in the open Court. Adjourn this petition on 23/3/15." The High Court on 13th March, 2015 entertaining a
revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of CivilProcedure, passed the following order: "It is represented that all through pending the suit, there was interim injunction. Hence, there shall be interim injunction, as prayed for, pending further orders." 7 After the said order was passed, an applicationunder Section 151 of the CPC was filed seeking policehelp to put the respondent in possession. The High Courtpassed the following order: "Having regard to the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, there shall be interrim direction as prayed for." We have heard learned senior counsel Mr. ShyamDivan for the petitioner and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learnedsenior counsel and Mr. S.S. Prasad for the respondent.We are of the considered opinion that the High Courtshould not have passed the said order in exercise of itsrevisional jurisdiction when there was no interim orderor refusal or declaration to pass an order of injunction.Such an order was unwarranted. In our considered view,as an order of injunction was in force before the TrialJudge during the pendency of the Suit cause of justicewould be subserved if the learned District Judge,Vijayawada takes up the application for injunction filedby the appellant in appeal, that is l A.S. No. 45 of 2015and dispose of the same within six weeks from today. We direct for maintenance of status quo as on todayas an ad interim arrangement. The revision pending inthe High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 970 of 2015shall be deemed to have been disposed of. The appellate 8court shall hear the matter of injunction within theparameters for grant of injunction in accordance with lawwithout being influenced by any order passed by any
Court. We make it clear that we have not expressed anyopinion on the merits of the case as the direction isissued totally as on ad interim measure. The special leave petitions are disposed of. Noorder as to costs. (Neeta) (H.S. Parasher) Sr. P.A. Court Master