KOTHAPALLI ANANDAM Vs. ANDHRA BRAHMA PRACHARAKA TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition was admitted on 12. 1. 2009. Notice was ordered initially. However, in view of the i urgency pleaded, on 10. 2. 2009 interim stay was granted in C. R. P. M. P. No. 113/2009 I for a limited period. C. R. P. M. P. No. 1144/ 2009 is filed to vacate the said interim order made by this Court on 10. 2. 2009 in C. R. P. M. P. No. 113/2009. When the vacate application is coming up for hearing, the counsel on record made submissions in elaboration and also made a request to dispose of the civil revision petition itself.

(2.) SRI T. V. S. Prabhakara Rao, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the petitioner had preferred special leave petition as against an order made in C. R. P. No. 5204/2008. The Counsel also would maintain that when the petitioner reported ready in the main matter itself, the ordering of delivery is bad in law. The Counsel also would maintain that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, kakinada, totally erred in making such an order which is being challenged by way of the present C. R. P. The Counsel pointed out to yet another aspect that shashibhushan being no more, Rajyalaxmi, the wife of Shashibhushan, cannot maintain the present vacate application.

(3.) ON the contrary, the Counsel representing respondent - Andhra Brahma pracharaka Trust, would maintain that the said Shashibhushan is no more and rajyalaxmi, the wife of Shashibhushan, being the Managing Trustee of the Trust, can definitely maintain the present application to vacate the interim order. The Counsel also would maintain that it may be true that the special leave petition was filed before the Apex Court but however the apex Court was not inclined to grant any interim order. The Counsel also would maintain that the order made by the learned principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada is only a consequential order and hence, the civil revision petition itself is not maintainable as against such an order. The Counsel also would maintain that several of the facts had been suppressed by the revision petitioner. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the petitioner obtained interim injunction behind back of the respondent - Trust by filing I. A. No. 159/2005 in O. S. No. 240/05 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, kakinada, and after receiving notice in the said interlocutory application, the Trust filed counter and contested the matter and after hearing both sides elaborately, the learned Judge vacated the interim injunction holding that the petitioner approached the court with unclean hands and he is not entitled to temporary injunction. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred C. M. A. No. 61/06 on the file of III-Additional district Judge, Kakinada, and the same was dismissed on 1. 5. 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner further preferred c. R. P. No. 2429/2007 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 17. 7. 2007. In the light of the series of events, the present civil revision petition being devoid of merit, the same is liable to be dismissed. The counsel also placed strong reliance on several of the decisions.