The issue regarding occupation of premises by respondent No. 1 in the guise of decree for injunction was not conclusively adjudicated except an observation made by the lower Appellate Court that respondent No. 1 has a moral obligation to vacate the premises. Therefore, in the absence of any enforceable order or decree granted in favour of the petitioner, he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 94 of C.P.C. At best, the petitioner could have invoked the provisions of Section 144 of C.P.C. for restitution if he was dispossessed based on the interim order or decree for injunction by respondent No. 1.





CRPSR 7946 / 2010



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
C.R.P.No. 721 OF 2017
DATED 17TH FEBRUARY, 2017
Between:
Yernena Satyanarayana … Petitioner
AND
Boppa Anantha Rao and others … Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Subrahmanyam
Counsel for respondent No. 1 : Sri G.Ramagopal
Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : --
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING
CVNR, J.
2 crp_721_2017
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 17-11-2009 in I.A.No.
484 of 2009 in O.S.No. 1475 of 2001 on the file of the Court of II Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'the trial Court').
2. I have heard Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
perused the record.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed O.S.No. 1475 of 2001 against the petitioner for
permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit. The said decree and
judgment were reversed by learned IX Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam
(for short, 'the lower Appellate Court'), and the same were confirmed by this
Court in S.A.No. 739 of 2007. The effect of these proceedings is that the
respondent No. 1 did not ultimately succeed in the legal proceedings initiated for
securing decree for injunction. The defendants in the suit filed I.A.No. 484 of
2009 under Section 94 (e) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(for short, 'C.P.C.') to order arrest and detention of respondent No. 1 for his
failure to vacate shop room, forming part of the suit schedule property. It is the
pleaded case of the petitioner that in the guise of decree for injunction granted in
his favour by the trial Court, respondent No. 1 has occupied the aforementioned
shop room and has failed to vacate the same though the lower Appellate Court
has made an observation that respondent No. 1 has a moral obligation to vacate
the premises. The trial Court, however, dismissed the said application.
3. Having considered the aforementioned facts of the case, I am of the
opinion that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the interlocutory application.
Section 94 of C.P.C. empowers the Courts to exercise certain powers in order to
prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. These powers are exercisable
CVNR, J.
3 crp_721_2017
when the facts of the case so warranted. This provision, therefore, cannot be
invoked in isolation unless the party also satisfies the Court that on the merits of
the case any of the measures indicated under Section 94 of C.P.C. has to be
initiated by the Court.
4. In the instant case, the petitioner has not obtained any relief in the
proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1. As observed hereinbefore, the final
result of the legal proceedings commencing with the institution of O.S.No. 1475
of 2001 by respondent No. 1 got terminated against his interest. In other words,
though the trial Court has granted decree for injunction in favour of respondent
No. 1, eventually the said decree was set aside by the lower Appellate Court and
the same was confirmed by this Court. The issue regarding occupation of
premises by respondent No. 1 in the guise of decree for injunction was not
conclusively adjudicated except an observation made by the lower Appellate
Court that respondent No. 1 has a moral obligation to vacate the premises.
Therefore, in the absence of any enforceable order or decree granted in favour
of the petitioner, he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 94 of
C.P.C. At best, the petitioner could have invoked the provisions of Section 144
of C.P.C. for restitution if he was dispossessed based on the interim order or
decree for injunction by respondent No. 1.

5. In the light of the abovementioned discussion, I do not find any merit in
this civil revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
Date: 17-02-2017.
JSK

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

SALE OF ASSIGNED LAND OF EX- SERVICE MEN AFTER 10 YEARS, NOT QUESTIONABLE= The lands that are assigned to Ex-servicemen, however, are treated differently. For all practical purposes, such lands are taken away from the purview of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1994, directing that, after expiry of ten years from the date of assignment, the Ex-servicemen shall be entitled to alienate the land assigned to them. In case, ten years have expired from the date of assignment in favour of the vendor’s vendor of the petitioner, the respondents cannot object the alienation made by his vendor.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.