IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Review W.P.M.P.No.37918 of 2014 in W.P.No.11439 of 2014 Between:
Regula Ramaswamy Goud, S/o. Dubbaiah, Aged 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o.9-6-76, Ramnagar, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District & another .. Petitioners AND Shanagonda Laxmipathi, S/o.Veeraiah, Aged 44 years, Occ: Carpentor, R/o. Door No.10-2-146/A3, Vidyanagar, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District & 3 others .. Respondents Review W.P.M.P.No.37917 of 2014 in W.P.No.11440 of 2014 & Between:
Regula Ramaswamy Goud, S/o. Dubbaiah, Aged 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o.9-6-76, Ramnagar, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District & another .. Petitioners AND Kasarla Manga, W/o. Madhukar Reddy, Aged 38 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Door No.10-3-197,. Vidyanagar, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District & 3 others .. Respondents AND Review W.P.M.P.No.37913 of 2014 in W.P.No.11441 of 2014 Between:
Regula Ramaswamy Goud, S/o. Dubbaiah, Aged 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o.9-6-76, Ramnagar, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District & another .. Petitioners AND Vootkuri Vinatha, W/o. Papiredy, Aged 41 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Door No.2-10-826/A, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Review W.P.M.P.No.37918 of 2014 in W.P.No.11439 of 2014, Review W.P.M.P.No.37917 of 2014 in W.P.No.11440 of 2014 & Review W.P.M.P.No.37913 of 2014 in W.P.No.11441 of 2014 COMMON ORDER:
Three writ petitions are instituted contending that even though an order of injunction was passed by the civil Court restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property and though the same was brought to the notice of the registering authority, the registering authority illegally entertained the Deeds of Conveyance transferring the property in favour of respondents 4 and 5 (review petitioners herein) and respondents 4 and 5 are seeking to further alienate the said properties. The respondents 4 and 5 are subsequent purchasers during the pendency of O.S.Nos.267, 268 and 269 of 2007. Having come to know that the respondents 4 and 5 have purchased the suit schedule properties, they were also arrayed as defendants 4 and 5.
2. It was contended that when the injunction order is in force and when the same was brought to the notice of the registering authority, the registering authority ought not to have entertained the registration. This contention was not controverted by the respondents including the review petitioners herein. Having regard to the same, considering the submission of the petitioners that the injunction order was in force, the writ petitions were allowed holding that entertainment of Deeds of Conveyance when injunction order is in force is illegal. However, the registrations already made were directed not to be disturbed and such registrations should abide the result of the suits pending before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Karimnagar. The respondents 4 and 5 were directed not to alienate the properties purchased by them until further orders are passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
3. Learned counsel for the review petitioners contend that when the counter affidavit was filed, the review petitioners were not aware that the injunction order granted on 07.12.2007 was not extended subsequently and the order expired on 26.12.2007, just about the time they were arrayed as defendants in the suit. Subsequently, the review petitioners have applied for the certified copies of the docket orders and on perusal of the docket orders, it is seen that the injunction order expired on 26.12.2007 and it was not further extended. Thus, because of a wrong statement made before this Court, the writ petitions were allowed, whereas by the time properties were purchased by the petitioners, there was no injunction order operating and, therefore, the review petitioners are entitled to further alienate the property and the restraint imposed on that ground is not valid. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that there is a clear error apparent on the face of the record. The order passed by this Court has to be reviewed and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners in the writ petitions do not dispute the fact that the injunction order granted on 07.12.2007 was valid till 26.12.2007 only and it was not extended further.
4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) No.324 of 2007, dated 23.01.2007, in support of his contention that once an injunction order is granted, unless it is specifically vacated, it continues to operate till the disposal of the suit and there need not be an order of extension from time to time.
5. The order passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar in I.A.No.1925 of 2007 in O.S.No.269 of 2007 reads as under:
“In the result, the respondents are restrained by way of Ad-Exparte interim temporary injunction from alienating the suit property. Comply with order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. provisions. Issue injunction order and notices by 26.12.2007. Injunction granted till then.”
6. A reading of this order is very clear that injunction granted was valid till 26.12.2007 only. Thereafter, the suit was listed from time to time, but there is no mention of extension of injunction order granted on 07.12.2007. Thus, after 26.12.2007, the injunction granted on 07.12.2007 lapsed and no further orders are passed by the Senior Civil Judge.
7. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, though a mention was made of passing of injunction order, the averments are silent with reference to expiry of the orders on 26.12.2007 and that injunction order was not extended further. The averments proceed as if the injunction order was operating. The petitioners filed two representations, dated 25.12.2007 and 08.02.2010. The representation, dated 25.12.2007, was made when the injunction order was in force. But, by the time further representation was submitted on 08.02.2010, the injunction order was not in force. However, the same fact was also not mentioned in the said representation. Believing the version of the petitioners that the injunction order was in force, the writ petitions were allowed following the judgment of this Court in Venkannagari Naveen Rao and another Vs. Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Sangareddy and another [2013 (1) alt 41] and the provision contained in Standing Order No.219.
8. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is against the claim of the petitioners. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that once an order of injunction granted, even it is for a limited period and even if it is not extended subsequently, unless that order is vacated, the said interim order is deemed to have been in operation until the disposal of the main case. In view of the said declaration given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was held that the limitation prescribed in Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, comes to the rescue of the authorities. On appeal, the Supreme Court held as under:
“The term of the order of the learned Judge, in our opinion, does not leave any manner of doubt whatsoever that the interim order was only extended from time to time. The interim order having been extended till a particular date, the contention raised by the respondents herein that they were under a bona fide belief that the injunction order would continue till it was vacated cannot be accepted.
In our considered opinion, the purport of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panipat, in extending the order of injunction is absolutely clear and explicit. It may be true that the date was preponed to 28.07.1998, but from a bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, it is evident that the order of injunction was not extended. Even on the subsequent dates, the order of injunction was not extended. In fact, no order extending the period was passed nor any fresh order of injunction was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, subsequent thereto.
There is no warrant for the proposition, as was stated by the High Court that unless an order of stay passed once even for the limited period is vacated by an express order or otherwise; the same would continue to operate.”
9. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioners/respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition. Under the impression that the injunction granted on 07.12.2007 was in force by the time the properties were registered, this Court allowed the writ petitions declaring the registration of Deeds of Conveyance concerning the suit schedule properties as illegal.
10. Having regard to the fact that the injunction order expired on 26.12.2007 and was not extended further, there was no embargo imposed on alienation of the properties by respondents 4 and 5 and further alienation by respondents 4 and 5. Thus, the Review W.P.M.P.Nos.37918 of 2014 in W.P.No.11439 of 2014, Review W.P.M.P.No.37917 of 2014 in W.P.No.11440 of 2014 & Review W.P.M.P.No.37913 of 2014 in W.P.No.11441 of 2014 are allowed and the order, dated 02.07.2014, passed in W.P.Nos.11439, 11440 & 11441 of 2014 is set aside. Consequently, the W.P.Nos.11439, 11440 & 11441 of 2014 are dismissed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 13th March, 2015 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Review W.P.M.P.No.37918 of 2014 in W.P.No.11439 of 2014, Review W.P.M.P.No.37917 of 2014 in W.P.No.11440 of 2014 & Review W.P.M.P.No.37913 of 2014 in W.P.No.11441 of 2014 Date: 17th March, 2015 KL