Telangana High Court
CRP/6297/2009 of M/s. JMR Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs MR.P.Venkata Ravi Kishore on 31 December 2009
JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 6297 OF 2009 Friday, the Thirty First day of November, Two Thousand and Nine Between M/s. JMR Developers Private Limited, Rep. By its Managing Director, Sri K.Jagan Mohan Rao, Office at Plot No.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 6297 OF 2009
Friday, the Thirty First day of November,Two Thousand and Nine Between M/s. JMR Developers Private Limited,Rep. By its Managing Director,Sri K.Jagan Mohan Rao, Office atPlot No. 149, Road No.72,Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
AND
Petitioner
Mr.P.Venkata Ravi Kishore and others
Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
C.R.P. NO. 6297 OF 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of theConstitution of India is preferred by the first plaintiff in O.S.
No. 719 of 2009 on the file of the III Addl. Chief CivilJudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, aggrieved by theorder dated 21.12.2009 made in I.A. No. 4553 of 2009filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC directing thepetitioner and the respondents therein not to alienate theproperty till 15.2.2010.
The petitioner and the respondent 3 to 7 herein filedthe above suit seeking to declare the cancellation ofdocument No. 2635 of 2007 dated 12.7.2007 bydocument No. 3573 of 2009 dated 25.11.2009 executedby the first respondent herein unilaterally and to declarethe cancellation of the document No. 9194 dated12.7.2007 by document No. 2870 of 2009 dated25.11.2009 executed by the second respondent hereinunilaterally as null and void and not enforceable againstthe petitioner and third respondent herein. Along with theabove suit, the petitioner and respondent 3 to 7 hereinfiled the above interlocutory application seeking temporaryinjunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 and theirmen from interfering with the peaceful physicalpossession and enjoyment over the petition scheduleproperty, pending disposal of the suit.
The court below, by the following cryptic order,directed both the parties not to alienate the property till15.2.2010.
“…Notice given. Sri E.A.R. ((E.Ajay Reddy) filedvakalath for R1.S Sri E.A.R. offers vakalath for R2. Forcounter of R1 and Vakalath and counter of R2 by15.2.2010 and petitioners and respondents shall notalienate property till then…”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thecourt below ought not to have restrained the petitionerfrom alienating the property inasmuch as after alienationonly, it can pay the proportionate share as per theentitlement of the parties and, therefore, the orderimpugned is beyond the scope of the relief sought for inthe petition. It is further contended that at the most therespondents are entitled to only 17,603 SFT (six flats)along with the parking and for this extent, they cannot staythe entire project.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondentscontends that the court below is perfectly justified inpassing the order impugned inasmuch as it is aninnocuous order and protects the interests of both theparties, pending suit.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the courtbelow ought to have adverted to reasons beforerestraining the parties from alienating the property,inasmuch as it is case of the petitioner herein that therespondents are, at best, entitled to only 17,603 SFT viz.,six flats and with this extent, they cannot stall the entire project. In this premise, without adverting to the variouscontentions raised by the counsel on either side, as noreasons are assigned by the court below in passing theimpugned order, the Civil Revision Petition is allowedsetting aside the impugned order and remanding thematter to the court below for passing orders afresh afteraffording opportunity of hearing to both the sides. No orderas to costs.
December 31, 2009MAS.
____________________
Justice T. Meena Kumari