Smt. Pogiri Mahalakshmi v. Saragadam Govindaraju & Ors.

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Kum. N. Suneetha, Advocate representing Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the revision petitioner and of Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, Advocate for the 1st respondent, the Court made the following ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order in C.M.A. No.69 of 2006 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, dated 09-07-2007. In I.A. No.256 of 2006 in O.S. No.483 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, the revision petitioner herein sought for an interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent herein from making any more constructions in the plaint schedule property claiming to have entered into an agreement with respondents 2 and 3 herein to purchase the same on 18-10-2003 paying an advance of Rs.2,00,000/-. While the dispute was subject of P.L.C. No.224 of 2004 before the Legal Services Authority, a suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein in O.S. No.3136 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for a permanent injunction against the revision petitioner. Questioning the right of respondents 2 and 3 herein to sell the property to the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner herein sought for a temporary injunction. The 1st respondent herein claimed to have purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 14-03-2005 for valuable consideration, while respondents 2 and 3 herein remained ex parte. The trial Court after marking Exs.A.1 to A.7 and B.1 to B.4 during the enquiry, passed an order on 26-06-2006 opining that notwithstanding the execution of Ex.A.1 on 18-10-2003, respondents 2 and 3 herein failed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner herein and sold away the property to the 1st respondent herein. Therefore, the trial Court considered prima facie case to be in existence to justify the grant of interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent herein from constructing any more in the suit property till disposal of the suit. In appeal in C.M.A. No.69 of 2006, the impugned order was passed on 09-07-2007, in which the appellate Court doubted Ex.A.1 agreement of sale and its legal validity, but it also observed that on going through the entire record, the 1st respondent herein also did not appear to be playing fair role in the execution of the documents and entering into contracts and agreements. The appellate Court positively observed that “both parties were playing defeating the role of other party” and consequently, allowed the appeal and set aside the interim injunction awarded by the trial Court. The plaintiff challenges the said order in this revision contending that the genuineness and enforceability of Ex.A.1 has to be decided in the trial and not in the interlocutory adjudication. Kum. N. Suneetha, learned counsel representing Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the 1st respondent are heard. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to an interim relief against the 1st respondent herein ? Point: The trial Court after an elaborate consideration of the material on record did not find anything doubtful in Ex.A.1 agreement of sale and also noted that in spite of demands, respondents 2 and 3 herein did not execute the sale deed. The trial Court also observed that the role of the respondents, who are kith and kin and who obtained an interim injunction in O.S. No.3136 of 2006 to facilitate construction by the 1st respondent herein, cannot be justified and the trial Court considered the registered sale deed Ex.B.1 to have not, prima facie, overridden Ex.A.1 agreement of sale. These observations, ex facie, appear to be in tune with the documents on record, while the doubts entertained by the appellate Court against the case of the revision petitioner do not appear to be on the strength of any positive circumstances flowing out of the documents on record. The anterior agreement in favour of the petitioner should help him preserve the property in the same state pending a decision on merits in the suit. It may be noted that since 24-08-2007, the order of status quo obtaining as on that day to be maintained until further orders as per the orders in C.R.P.M.P. No.4944 of 2007 is in force, while an order of interim injunction was in force during the pendency of I.A. No.256 of 2006 until the impugned order on 09-07-2007. The 1st respondent herein has to be, therefore, restrained from making any constructions during the pendency of the suit by directing continuance of the status quo order. As the suit is of the year 2006, the trial Court can be directed to expedite disposal of the case on merits to protect the rights and interests of both parties. Hence, while the appellate order is not sustainable, the revision has to be disposed of on the said lines. Accordingly, the order in C.M.A. No.69 of 2006 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, dated 09-07-2007 is set aside and the status quo shall continue to be maintained in respect of the subject property till the determination of the suit on merits and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 01-07-2010 Svv