logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 TSHC 1392 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Civil Revision Petition No. 3968 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Parties : Vattipalli Mangamma Versus Maila Somaiah & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Mohd. Abdul Ismail Zabeullah, Advocate. For the Respondents:Sri Bondempally Ramulu, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 01-12-2025
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC
- sub‑rule ‘3’ of Order 39 CPC
- Order XLIII Rule 1 clause (r) CPC

2. Catch Words:
- Temporary injunction
- Civil Revision Petition
- Urgent notice
- Appealability
- Costs

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the docket order dated 21‑10‑2024, which had ordered an urgent notice to Respondent No. 3 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC in a suit for temporary injunction. The petitioner claimed a right to injunction over a disputed sale deed and alleged that the lower court erred by not granting the injunction. The court observed that the lower court correctly issued notice before any injunction, as mandated by sub‑rule 3 of Order 39, and found no procedural irregularity. It held that the order is appealable only under Order XLIII Rule 1 clause (r) CPC, requiring a civil miscellaneous appeal to the District Court. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without costs.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Heard Sri Mohd.Abdul Ismail Zabeullah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Bondempally Ramulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking prayer as under:

“...to allow the CRP by setting aside the order dt 21.

10.202 passed in IA No. 431 of 2024 in OS No. 29 of 2024 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon and pass...”

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

3. This civil Revision Petition is preferred against the docket order dated 21.10.2024 in IA No.431 of 2024 in OS No. 29 of 2024 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon whereunder the court after perusing the record ordered urgent notice to the Respondents No.3/ Defendant No.3 on the petition filed by the plaintiff under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking grant of temporary injunction against the Respondent No.3/ Defendant No 3.

4. As can be seen from the petition IA No.431 of 2024 in OS No. 29 of 2024 the plea of the Petitioner/Plaintiff is that the respondents 1 and 2 are her parents and the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and OS No. 71 of 2012 was filed for partition of the properties and the said suit was disposed off by the court of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon and she had 1/5th of the share in the properties and that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sold the suit property under an agreement of sale to Respondent No.3 who filed the OS No. 200 of 2012 for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale and the suit was decreed and sale deed 30.09.2024 was executed through process of the court but possession of the property was not delivered to Respondent No 3 and that the sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No.3 is null and void and not binding on her and that therefore she is entitled for grant of temporary injunction against the Respondent No.3 for making construction on the land and from alienating the land to others.

5. The lower court as can be seen from the impugned docket order after perusing the record ordered urgent notice to the respondent.

               As per order 39 Rule 1, clauses ‘a’ to ‘c’ deal with the cases in which court may grant temporary injunction. But as per sub-rule ‘3’ of order 39 issuance of the notice to the respondent before grant of injunction in all cases is mandatory unless the court is of the opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated on account of delay by issuance of notice to the opposite party.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

6. In the present case the lower court after per using the record ordered urgent notice to the respondent which inferentially shows that the court felt that the case of the petitioner/plaintiff did not deserve grant of ad-interim injunction, therefore the lower court did not commit any illegality or procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order. Apart from this, the impugned order, ordering the notice to the respondent without grant of temporary injunction is appealable under order XLIII Rule 1 clause (r) CPC and so the petitioner ought to have preferred civil miscellaneous appeal to the district court instead of rushing this court by way of present CRP. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner do not apply to the facts of the present case. For the following reasons the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal