AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As the issue involved in both the CRPs is interlinking based on the same set of facts and arising out of the same suit, both the CRPs are disposed of by this common order.
The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.204 of 2022 on the file Court of VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, against the respondents herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.29,14,155/- from respondent No.1. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.130 of 2022 under Order XXXVIII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for attachment before Judgment and another application in I.A.No.131 of 2022 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C to restraine respondent No.2 from removing/taking over the petition schedule property from the premises/hangar of respondent No.2. The schedule of property in both the IAs., is aircraft of the make, Boeing 737-800 NG, MSN 29884 with Registration No.S2-AIV, parked at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. The learned trial Court having considered both the IAs, by order dated 06.04.2022, ordered urgent notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2, while directing the matter to be listed on 12.04.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 06.04.2022 in I.A.Nos.130 of 2022 and 131 of 2022, the petitioner herein filed CRP Nos.818 and 808 of 2022, respectively.
This Court having considered both the CRPs together by a common order, dated 07.04.2022 passed the following order:
“1st respondent shall furnish security for the suit claim before the trial court within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, there shall be ad interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent from removing/taking off the petition schedule property i.e., the aircraft of the make and manufacture Boeing 737 – 800 NG MSN 29884, with Registration No.S2-AIV.
On furnishing of such security, the ad interim injunction order stands vacated.
In case of default, the aircraft of the 1st respondent of the make and manufacture Boeing 737 – 800 NG MSN 29884, with Registration No.S2-AIV, which is stated to be landed in the 2nd respondent –Airport, stands attached, and it is for the 1st respondent to bear the landing and other charges, if any.”
While matters were pending, I.A.No.5 of 2022 is filed by AABS Aviation 1 (Ireland) Limited seeking to implead itself as respondent No.3 in the main CRPs along with I.A.No.4 of 2022 seeking to vacate the order, dated 07.04.2022. The said I.A.Nos.4 of 2022 and 5 of 2022 are moved in the 3rd Vacation Court by way of Lunch Motion.
Heard Sri P.S.S.Kailash Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for implead proposed respondent No.3.
Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the proposed respondent No.3/implead petitioner submitted that the aircraft in question, which is now attached by virtue of the order, dated 07.04.2022 passed by this Court is, in fact, belongs to the proposed respondent No.3 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the CRPs, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.204 of 2022, are nothing to do with the said aircraft. The petitioner herein by misrepresenting the facts and without filing any document to show that respondent No.1 herein is the owner of the subject aircraft, obtained the interim order from this Court.
Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel also contended that the relevant documents showing the ownership of the proposed respondent No.3 herein are also placed. He further submitted that because of the order, dated 07.04.2022 passed by this Court, at the instance of the petitioner, the proposed respondent No.3 is incurring heavy losses and damages as the aircraft in question is restrained from removing from respondent No.2 airport. Hence, submitted that without prejudice to the rights of the proposed respondent No.3, respondent No.3 is ready and willing to furnish bank guarantee for the entire suit claim and to workout its remedies including lifting of the attachment before the trial Court in O.S.No.204 of 2022, and to establish its ownership over the subject Aircraft.
Sri P.S.S.Kailash Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner acceded to the said course of action i.e., furnishing of bank guarantee by the proposed respondent No.3 to the entire suit claim subject to and without prejudice to the rights of proposed respondent No.3 to be agitated in the pending suit.
In the circumstances, this Court is inclined to order implead petition i.e., I.A.No.5 of 2022. Accordingly I.A.No.5 of 2022 is ordered.
Taking into consideration the rival submissions, especially, the offer made by the counsel for the proposed respondent No.3, both the C.R.Ps are disposed of with the following directions:
(1) Respondent No.3 is at liberty to file appropriate application seeking to implead itself as party to O.S.No.204 of 2022 pending on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and furnish bank guarantee favoruing the learned trial Court securing the entire suit amount of Rs.59,14,155/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(2) Order, dated 07.04.2022 passed by this Court in C.R.P Nos.808 and 818 of 2022 shall continue till respondent No.3 furnishing bank guarantee for the suit claim as directed above.
(3) On furnishing of the bank guarantee by respondent No.3 as above and accepting the same by the learned trial Court, the order, dated 07.04.2022 passed by this Court shall come to an end.
(4) Respondent No.3 is at liberty to move appropriate application ascertain its right over the subject aircraft and the learned trial Court shall consider the said application, if any, filed by respondent No.3, on its own merits, without reference to the fact of furnishing of bank guarantee by respondent No.3 herein and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
(5) In case, if the trial Court comes to the conclusion that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have no right of ownership on the schedule aircraft and that respondent No.3 herein is alone having right over the said aircraft, the learned trial Court may pass appropriate orders on the continuous or otherwise of the bank guarantee furnished by respondent No.3.
Till the entire exercise is completed as above by the learned trial Court, the bank guarantee furnished by the respondent No.3 shall be kept alive, by Respondent No.3. With the above directions, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.