KONA SUSHEELA Vs. LAKSHMI CHANDRAKANTHI
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Click here to view full judgement.
SHAMEEM AKTHER,J. -
(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C, is filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 aggrieved by the order, dtd. 3/12/2021 passed in I.A.No.586 of 2020 in O.S.No.174 of 2020 by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the subject Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was disposed of by the Court below directing both the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of suit proceedings.
(2.) Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the record. Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are not necessary parties to this appeal vide cause title.
(3.) It is evident from the record that the Court below had not decided whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff to grant the relief as sought for. Furthermore, the pleadings made by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 with regard to Ex.R3-certified copy of registered settlement deed dtd. 27/4/2009 and Ex.R4-certified copy of registered settlement deed dtd. 29/12/2012 were not discussed by the Court below to arrive at a conclusion. Further, when an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the Court has to initially decide whether there is a prima facie case to grant the relief sought for. Without doing so, the Court below simply disposed of the subject Interlocutory Application directing both the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of suit proceedings, which is improper. The Court below has to pass a final order, either allowing or dismissing the subject Interlocutory Application, but ought not have disposed of the application directing the parties to maintain status quo.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.