HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CRP.No.2877 of 2014 Date:19.09.2014 Between:
K.K.Madhusudhan, S/o K.Krishnamurthy and another.
. Petitioners And:
Y.Subramanyam, S/o Satyanarayana and two others.
. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.Vijaya Babu For Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora Counsel for the respondents: Sri P.Narasimha Rao The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 21.07.2014, in I.A.No.1392 of 2013 in OS.No.1761 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
I have heard Sri V.Vijaya Babu, learned counsel representing Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents who entered caveat.
The petitioners filed OS.No.1761 of 2009 in the Court of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for the following substantive reliefs:
“(a) permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, representatives, their men and anybody representing them from ever interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property bearing Flat Nos.301 and 501 belonging to plaintiffs respectively;
(b) costs of this suit; and
(c) for such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
In the plaint, the petitioners specifically stated that they have purchased flats bearing Nos.301 and 501 under registered sale deeds from their owners-Sri P.Rajendra Kumar and Smt P.Swarna Latha, respectively; that in order to protect the flats from thefts and robberies, they have erected iron grills in front of the main door of their flats; that the respondents-defendants, who alleged to be members of the Flat Owners Association, are trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, for their personal gains; and that surprisingly, by letters, dated 23.01.2006, the respondents threatened the petitioners to demolish the grills without any manner of right and that again on 26.01.2006, they have tried to interfere with the petitioners’ possession illegally and high handedly.
The suit was subsequently dismissed for default. The petitioners filed an application for restoration of the suit. As there was delay of 55 days in filing the said application, they have also filed I.A.No.1392 of 2013 for condonation of the said delay. This application was resisted by the respondents by filing a counter-affidavit, wherein they have averred that the disputed grill relating to the second petitioner’s Flat bearing No.501 was removed with the assistance of the municipal authorities after service of notice; that in respect of the disputed grill erected in front of the first petitioner’s flat bearing No.301, the municipal authorities tried to remove the same also; that on the objection raised by him and on information to Police, the same was removed after giving 15 days notice by the municipal authorities. The Court below dismissed the petitioners’ application for condonation of delay by placing reliance on the averment made in the counter- affidavit that the disputed grills were removed. It has also held that in view of the removal of the grills, filing of the petition itself serves no purpose as, the dispute raised in the suit is only with regard to erection of grills.
In my opinion, the Court below has completely misdirected itself in dismissing the application on an erroneous premise. Though the subject matter of the suit pertains to erection of grills, the prayer in the plaint as reproduced supra is wide enough to cover the aspects other than the erection of grills. The prayer in the suit is not confined only to permanent injunction restraining the defendants from removing the grills. Had it been so, the lower Court would have been right in treating the suit as infructuous. The prayer in the suit is broad enough to take in a situation, where even after removal of grills also, the relief of permanent injunction could be granted to the plaintiffs, if the Court is satisfied that they are entitled to re-erection of grills. Once such relief is granted, the plaintiffs will be entitled to re-erect the grills.
In the light of the above analysis, the order of the lower Court is set aside. I.A.No.1392 of 2013 is restored to file. The lower Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.1392 of 2013 on its own merits without treating the suit as having become infructuous.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
19thSeptember, 2014
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY
DR