[HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2336 OF 2014 Dated 25-7-2014 Between:
Saragada Sivaram and another.
..Petitioners.
And:
Pinninti Ramireddy and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2336 OF 2014 ORDER:
This revision is against orders dated 26-6-2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram in C.M.A.No.3 of 2013.
Revision petitioners herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.106 of 2009 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and when the suit is dismissed for default, on 15-6-2012, they filed I.A.No.299 of 2012 for restoration of suit and the trial court dismissed the said application by order dated 5-12-2012. Challenging the same, plaintiffs preferred C.M.A.No.3 of 2013 to the District Court, Vizianagaram. Learned District Judge while allowing the C.M.A. ordered restoration of the suit but directed not to restore other interlocutory applications which were also dismissed along with the suit. Now aggrieved by this direction of the District Judge, not to restore the interlocutory applications, present revision is preferred.
Heard advocate for petitioner.
She submitted that in a suit, there are interlocutory applications; one for grant of temporary injunction in which status quo order is granted and the other is under order 39 Rule 2 A to punish the second respondent for violation of the order and the other application is to amend the plaint. She further submitted that when a suit is ordered to be restored, all the connected interlocutory applications would automatically be restored but on account of the specific direction of the appellate court, trial court restored the suit only and the other interlocutory applications are not restored. She further submitted that such direction is erroneous when interlocutory applications are part and parcel of the suit.
I have perused the impugned order dated 26-6- 2014.
Learned District Judge while allowing appeal by setting aside the orders in I.A.No.299 of 2012 of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram directed the plaintiffs to proceed with the trial but restricted restoration of interlocutory applications that are pending along with the suit on the date of dismissal. As rightly pointed out by advocate for petitioner, the interlocutory applications are part and parcel of the suit till they are disposed of and when there is a status quo order in one of the interlocutory applications, there is allegation of violation for which a separate application is filed including a petition for amendment of plaint restraining their restoration, I am of the view, would amount to denial of right of the plaintiffs, because when the suit is restored, all the connected petitions should also be restored and there cannot be restriction for restoration of some proceedings by restraining the party from prosecuting those petitions.
For these reasons, I am of the view that the learned District Judge erred in giving such direction and the same has to be set aside.
Accordingly, this revision is allowed and impugned direction of the learned District Judge, Vizianagaram restricting restoration of interlocutory application is hereby set aside and the trial court shall restore them along with the suit, dispose of them on merits.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 25-7-2014.
Note:
Issue C.C. one week. BO.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2336 OF 2014 Dated 25-7-2014