THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4233 OF 2014 Dated:21-11-2014
Between
Miss Crystal Gager ... PETITIONER AND M/s. Rock Wood Steels, a partnership firm rep., by its Managing Partner, L.A.N. Samanth, S/o. L.K. Natraj, aged about 40 years, Occupation: Business, #6-1-289, formerly known as Casa-Rosa, Bungalow No.5, Walker town, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad and another .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4233 OF 2014 ORDER:
This revision is filed under peculiar circumstances.
The petitioner filed O.S No. 237 of 2013 in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents in respect of the suit schedule premises. She has also filed I.A No.144 of 2013 before the Vacation Civil Judge under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and an order of temporary injunction was granted. The I.A was re-numbered before the regular Court as I.A No. 544 of 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Receive and Transmit Petition No. 82 of 2014 before this Court during Dasara Vacation complaining that the respondents are trying to alienate the suit schedule property. That petition was disposed of by this Court on 01-10-2014 directing that after transmission the I.A shall be disposed of by the trial Court and status quo as on that date shall be maintained till then.
The respondents filed I.A SR No. 10245 of 2014 before the trial Court with a prayer to advance I.A No. 544 of 2013. The trial Court ordered the I.A and advanced the matter to a particular date. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the direction by this Court to dispose of the matter within one month was in respect of the petition filed for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the property, the I.A for advancement was filed in respect of I.A No.544 of 2013 which is in relation to temporary injunction as regards interference with the possession.
Heard Sri Rama Rao Immaneni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
On the face of it, the revision is not only frivolous but is also not maintainable. As of now, two interlocutory applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC are pending before the trial Court. One is in relation to temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the property and the other is about alienation. The first order is passed by the trial Court and the second is by this Court. It is ununderstandable as to how the petitioner feels aggrieved on account of hearing of one application or the other. In fact, the trial Court has to dispose of both the applications together.
Hence, the C.R.P is dismissed. It is directed that the trial Court shall hear all the interlocutory applications on a fixed date and dispose of them.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 21-11-2014 ks