CRP/2957/2023 of Smt. SWAROOPA CHARABUDDI Vs Mr. MEDIKONDA KIRAN PETER JOHN on 29 December 2023

1. Mr. Medikonda Kiran Peter John, S/o. M.Peter John, Aged about 52 years,Occ. Business, NRl, R/o. 40, Back Street, Philipsburg, St.Martin. PresentlyRl/o. Plot No. 319, Phase - ll, Saket Colony, Kapra, Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict.Occ. Business, NRl, R/o. 40, Back Street, Philipsburg, St.Martin. PresentlyRl/o. Plot No. 319, Phase - ll, Saket Colony, Kapra, Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict.

2. Mrs. Medikonda Glory,, Wo. M. Kiran Peter, Aged about 46 years, Occ.Business, NRl, Rl/o. 40, Back Street, Philipsburg, St.Martin. Presently Rl/o.Plot No. 319, Phase - ll, Saket Colony, Kapra, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.Business, NRl, Rl/o. 40, Back Street, Philipsburg, St.Martin. Presently Rl/o.Plot No. 319, Phase - ll, Saket Colony, Kapra, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs

1A NO: ['f ]OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grantstay of further proceedings in O.S.No.59 of 2021 on the file of the Court of thePrincipal District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Family Court, Medhchal-MalkajgiriDistrict, At Malkajgiri.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Srinivasa Rao PutluriCounsel for the Respondents: Sri Bommineni VivekanandaThe Court made the following: ORDER

.I'III] HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2957 of 2023

ORDIiII

1. 'l'his Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orderdatcd I I .09.2023 in I.A.No. 623 of 2023 in O.S.No. 59 of 2021 ofthe Plincipal District and Sessions Judge - cum - Family Court atMatkaigiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,AS being illegal andcontraf)r to settled principles of [aw.

2. Hcald learned counsel lor the petitioner and perused therecord

3. '[hc respondents herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed foris the plaintiff in the suit filed forthe plaintiff in the suit filed forplaintiff in the suit filed forthe suit filed forfiled forforeviction and recovery of arrears of rcnts. I-he petitioner hereinbeing thc sole defendant in the suit filed the underlyinginte lltrc trror'1, application under section 24 of the Code of CivilProccdurc, 1908 (for short 'the Code, 1908') seeking to transfer thesuit to thc commercial cour1.

'[hc respondents herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed foris the plaintiff in the suit filed forthe plaintiff in the suit filed forplaintiff in the suit filed forthe suit filed forfiled forfor 'l'lrc 'l'rial 'l'rial Court on hearing the parties dismissed theon hearing the parties dismissed thehearing the parties dismissed thethe parties dismissed theparties dismissed thedismissed thetheCourt on hearing the parties dismissed theon hearing the parties dismissed thehearing the parties dismissed thethe parties dismissed theparties dismissed thedismissed thethe

4. 'l'lrc 'l'rial 'l'rial Court on hearing the parties dismissed theon hearing the parties dismissed thehearing the parties dismissed thethe parties dismissed theparties dismissed thedismissed thetheapplication on the ground that the said application was filed as an

after-thought after the petitioner's defence was str-ucl< off.Aggrieved by the same the instant revision is preferred.Aggrieved by the same the instant revision is preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein cont.end\ r.har theCourt below ought to have allowed the application sincc thedisputes in the main suit were essentially commercial irr n:rtrrrc. ltis further contended that since the question of jurisdictro r .tocs tothe root of the issue, the fact that the petitioner's t.lclincc r.vasstruck olf does not bar the petitioner fron-r raising ths s,1i,,,- pls2_Alternately, it is contended that striking ofl defcrrcc ir .:a:c offailure to pay rents is not mandatory under the provisions ol'theRent Contlol Act, therefore, the fact that the petitioncr..r ric li,ncewas struck ofT had no relevance to adjudicate an aplrli.,,tr..lt.l totransfer the suit.

6. I have taken note of the submissions made.

7. A perusal of the record indicates, that along rvirlr tir.. ntainsuit the respondents herein had filed an interlocutory al.ri.rti6ngionnumbered as [.A.No. 359 of 2021 undcr Ordcr 15 Rrrlc :. ol'rhcCode, 1908 seeking deposit of monthly rents. The saicl :r1.irtiqn1i6nwa5 allowed vide order dated, 28.12.2021 dirccting thc 1.r.ri116n".

hercin rir clcposit monthly rents from Aprrl,202l to December,2021 at rhe agreed tariff rate failing which the petitioner's defencewould be struck off.

8. Ilre pctitioner herein aggrieved by the said order hadprell'r'r.crl C.R.P.No. 122 of 2022 before this Courr. After hearingthe nrattcr on admission this Court vide order dated I1.03.2022whilu y.r lirting stay ol the impugned order had directed thepetilitinrr.hcrein to pay the municipal taxes within four (4) weeksfronr thc date of the order, faiting which the interirn stay wouldstanci vacatcd. This Court had fufther directed the respondentshercirr ro cooperate with the petitioner to obtain the TIN numberand rcncw his license to run the restaurant. By the said order thisCourt hacl also clarified that the municipaltaxes paid by thepetitiorcl hcrcin would be adjusted towards arrears of rents

9. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up on01.04.2022,this [('ourr ]noted that though the municipal taxes were paid bypetitionrl on 20.03.2022, the TIN number could not be issued tothe pctit ioner by the said date. Therefore, this Court whileextcr)rliii!r the time granted vide ordel dated I1.03.2022 had imposed a condition that the petitioner herein was ro prrl I,'.1't' ofthe total rents ordered, to the respondents directly. I lowcr cr . sincethe petitioner herein had faited to comply with thc abrrvc saidconditional order, this Cotrt vide order dated 27.0,.1 ]i),-.-l hadvacated the interim stay granted earlier.

10. Thereatier, the petitioner herein on 01.09.10:.1 lllcd ainterlocutory application numbered as I.A.No. 1066 ol' l0l-', underOrder 7 Rule I I of the Code, 1908 seeking rejection ol pllint. l'hesaid application rvas dismissed by the Court below v1.1, or [(l( ]'. [(lrted]19.01.2023. lt is not shown to this Court that thc pctiti,rr:,:r [rrcrcin]had initiated any further proceedings as against 11.,. r3i1l or-' lcrI l. The petitioner's defence was then struck ofl br tltr: [('oLu-t]below vide docket order dated 28.03.2023. It is to be ohsclr ctl thatthe petitioner herein had filed the underlying application scckingtransfer ol the main suit on 17.04.2023 i.e., immediatcll :rlit'r' hisapplication for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

12. Further. it is to be seen that the Court belorv had obscrvedthe petitioncr hcrein had not raised the plea of jurisdictron irr hiswritten statement. Further, the impugned order crrtcr:or-icallv recolds rhat the said plea was never raised until his defence wasstrucl( o l'l .strucl( o l'l .

13. It r) pertinent to note the conduct of the petitioner herein infr.rrlr, [.,r'illlully ][disobeying ]the conditional order dated 01.04.2022,secot idh , litirrg the application under Order 7 Rule I I of the Code,l90ii on 01.09.2022, after the interim stay granted by this Court inC.R.['.No l22 of 2022 was vacated on 27.04.2022 and infinally, filinL,. the Lrnderlying application seeking transfer of the suit onlyalicl his :r;rplication for rejection of plaint had tailed. When theabovc conduct is considered in the light of the lact that rhepetitioncl herein had failed to raise the plea of jurisdiction at theverr ilrsL irtstance i.e., at the time of fiting his written statement, itis clcar thut the aforesaid speculative exercise was undertaken onlywith an irrtention to circumvent the order of the Court belowdireiiinr: Lhe petitioner to pay rents and to incidentally delay theproccedirrgs in the suit.

14. TIrc Strpreme Court in A. Shanmugam v. Ariya KshatriytRu.jtt 1;tqlt' Vumsathu Madalaya Nandhavana puipalonti Sangtmt, held that a wrongdoel or a litigant who take s Iris chancescannot be perrnitted to gain undue advantage by usirr-u 1!r,c,. [I ]rrt aSa tool. The relevant observations are as under

"338. A wrongdoer or in the prescnt context. a litisant rvho lal<cs hisehanccs, [cannot ]bc Dermitted [to gain by ][delarring ]tacties. [I! ][i!]lhc rlrr I r oIthe iudicial svstem lo discourage undue cnrichment or draryin -. [nf,'rrrluc]advantage. bv usinthe court as a tool. [n Kalabharati Advcrttsin-r ' [IIlrrt;tttl]ehanccs, [cannot ]bc Dermitted [to gain by ][delarring ]tacties. [I! ][i!]lhc rlrr I r oIthe iudicial svstem lo discourage undue cnrichment or draryin -. [nf,'rrrluc]advantage. bv usinthe court as a tool. [n Kalabharati Advcrttsin-r ' [IIlrrt;tttl]Vimalnath Narichania [MANU/SC/0674/2010 : (2010) 9 SC(- [,1 ]i i il trasobserved that courts should bc carcful in neutralizinc thc cffccl ofobserved that courts should bc carcful in neutralizinc thc cffccl ofconscquential orders oassed Dursuanl to interim ordcrs. Such dircclir',ns atcneccssar) to check thc rising trend among the litigants to securc rclrcfs as artinterinr rneasure and avoid adjudication of the case on rlerits lhrrs thsrcstitutionarl principle recognizcs and gives shape to the idea tlrai a,l'.rlrtrgcssecurcd b1 a litigant, on account of ordcrs of court. at his behcs(. sl'r' [!,! ][,,'1 ]hcneccssar) to check thc rising trend among the litigants to securc rclrcfs as artinterinr rneasure and avoid adjudication of the case on rlerits lhrrs thsrcstitutionarl principle recognizcs and gives shape to the idea tlrai a,l'.rlrtrgcssecurcd b1 a litigant, on account of ordcrs of court. at his behcs(. sl'r' [!,! ][,,'1 ]hcperpetuated; this rvould cncouragc the prolific or serial litigant. l(,,rit,rr:aclrcouns time and again and defeat rights of otlrers - including Ull(l!'r r)Irrrll ol'public purposes undcrlying acquisition proceedings. .... Futlhctntrrri. therestitutionary principle requires that the advantage gained by the litiglrrt [<lrotrld]couns time and again and defeat rights of otlrers - including Ull(l!'r r)Irrrll ol'public purposes undcrlying acquisition proceedings. .... Futlhctntrrri. therestitutionary principle requires that the advantage gained by the litiglrrt [<lrotrld]be suitabl)' ofIset, rn favour ofthe othet party."

(cmP ho.s i t .t r r1'1tl i ul)

15. In light of'the aloresaid discussion, this Court i5 lri il,, i icw that entertaining the present revision would enable t.hc 1;ctitlr",rrcr toindirectly do what he could not directly achieve. Thus, this [('ourt ]isof the view that the ordel' o[ the Court below in lc.i{-'r.ii!r] theinterlocutoq, application does not call for interference hy tlris [(-ourt]in exercise of its powers under Afticle 227 of the Cor-rstitution ofIndia.

I

16. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed.

l7Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closcd SD/. T JAYASREEASSISTANT BEGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//VSECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Prl District and Sessions Judge_cum_Judge, Famity Court, Medchal_Judge_cum_Judge, Famity Court, Medchal_Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri.

2. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao pufluri, Advocate [OPUC][OPUC]

[OPUC]3. One CC to Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, Ad;;te 4. Two CD Copies.Two CD Copies.fOpUCt4. Two CD Copies.Two CD Copies.fOpUCt

4. Two CD Copies.Two CD Copies.YIR [N]KMS[-v]

4. Two CD Copies.Two CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

TVK, J

DATED: 2911212023

ORDERCRP.No.2957 of 2023

DISMISSING OF THE CRP

1Yt[E ][STA][ r4:']\)oo21 [I'IAH ][202{]C)e+*tO6'SPATCIi[c0]