Koneru Satyanarayana vs. Nalam Syamala Kumari

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1026 of 2021

ORDER:-

The respondents herein had filed O.S.No.351 of 2021 in the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with the possession of the respondents over the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, the respondents had also filed I.A.No.153 of 2021 for permanent injunction. The trial Court had granted ad-interim ex parte injunction on 14.04.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.170 of 2021 to vacate the said order.

2. The case of the petitioner in I.A.No.170 of 2021 was that the petitioner had filed a caveat, despite which the trial Court had passed ad-interim ex parte injunction and the same was not permissible. The petitioner further submitted that the consequences of such an order being passed despite the lodgment of a caveat is that the said order has to be recalled and the matter be heard on merits. The respondents contested the said application and after hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.170 of 2021, by an order dated 13.08.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this, Court by way of the present civil revision petition.

3. Sri T.V.P.Sai Vihari learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the caveat had been addressed to the last known address of the respondents and upon service of such notice and lodgment of the caveat, it was not open to the trial Court to ignore the said caveat and pass an ad-interim ex parte injunction in favour of the respondents. He further submits that the trial Court without appreciating this principle of law was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner.

4. Smt.V.Dyumani learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that on facts, the trial Court had held that the petitioner was not able to demonstrate that the caveat has been served on the respondents. She would also draw the attention of this Court to the finding of the trial Court that the matter was not decided on merits and was decided only on the legal issue of the consequences of an ex parte injunction order being passed despite the presence of a caveat.

5. A perusal of the material placed before this Court would show that the caveat was sent by M/s.Haveesh Estates represented by its proprietor Sri K.Satyanarayana. The description of the defendant in the suit as well as in the injunction petition was Sri K.Satyanarayana. Further, the address of the respondents given in the sale deed executed between the petitioners and the respondents in the year 2008 shows that the respondents were residing in Moghalrajapuram whereas it is the claim of the respondents, as seen from their description in the plaint that the 1st respondent was residing in Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada.

6. In these circumstances, the trial Court appears to have concluded that the caveat was not served on the 1st respondent.

7. As far as the duty of the Court to inform the caveator upon lodgment of the caveat, is concerned, it appears that description of the petitioner as the proprietor of M/s.Haveesh Estates was contained in the body of the plaint and was not available in the cause title. There is every possibility that the section while verifying for caveats may have missed this aspect and reported that there was no caveat lodged by the petitioner when the matter was taken up by the trial Court.

8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has to be given an opportunity of hearing on the merits of the case.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the trial Court by way of a fresh application for vacating the earlier order dated 14.04.2021, on merits, within a period of two weeks from today. Upon any such application being filed, the trial Court is to dispose of the said application, on merits, after giving due opportunity to the respondents to file their counter affidavits. In any event, such exercise is to be completed within one month of the filing of the application by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

Date : 06-01-2022 Note: Issue C.C tomorrow. B/o. RJS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1026 of 2021

Date : 06.01.2022

RJS