Y. Dasaratharami Reddy vs Y. Venugopal Reddy

Eswara Prasad, J.—The revision is directed against an order of the Vacation Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No. 340/90 in O.S.No. 369/90 directing the petitioner not to dispose of item B of the suit schedule property and not to demolish the same. The said order was passed on the application made by the respondents for advancing the date of hearing of I.A.No. 475/90, which was a petition filed by the respondents for granting a temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit.

The respondents filed I.A.No. 475/90 on 22-3-90 and it was adjourned to 28-3-90 for appearance of the petitioner. It was subsequently adjourned to 22-6-90. The respondents filed I.A.No. 340/90 before the Vacation Civil Judge for advancing the hearing of I.A.No. 475/90. The learned Judge, instead of advancing I.A.No. 475/90, issued an injunction order against the petitioner with which the petitioner is aggrieved.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri T. Jagdish, contended that the order in I.A.No. 340/90 was made in violation the mandatory provisions of Rule 109 of the Civil Rules of Practice and that the Court has no jurisdiction to pass any orders without issuing a notice to the petitioner. He further contended that no order of injunction can be granted against the petitioner on a petition filed by the respondent for advancing the date of hearing of I.A.No. 475/90.

Sri Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the urgency of the matter, the Vacation Civil Judge, was justified in issuing an order of injunction instead of advancing I.A.No. 475/90 and that the provisions of law mentioned in the application are not the relevant matters to be considered when substantial justice was done.

A reading of Rule 109(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice makes it clear that issuance of a notice to the respondent is mandatory before advancing the date of hearing of an application which is pending in the Court. The learned Judge was in error in issuing an order of injunction in I.A.No. 340/90 which was not a petition for granting an injunction but was only an application for advancing the date of hearing of the injunction petition. Such an order being materially irregular, cannot be permitted to sustain. The order is therefore, set aside. The lower Court is directed to enquire into I.A.No. 475/90 expeditiously within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The revision is allowed. No order as to costs.

However, from the affidavit filed by the respondent in the lower Court, it appears that the respondent apprehends that the petitioner is proceeding to dispose of item B of the suit schedule property and also trying to demolish the same. In the circumstances, there shall be status quo, obtaining as on date, till the disposal of I.A.No. 475/90.