THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.215 of 2014 Between:
Dated 13th June, 2014 Sontineni Venkata Ramana And Karri Jayanand and others …Appellant …Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri M.Rama Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order, dated 05.12.2013, in I.A.No.616 of 2013, in O.S.No.122 of 2013, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Khammam whereby the learned Judge granted interim injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs restraining the appellant/defendant from alienating or transferring the suit property in favour of third parties pending the suit.
I have heard Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned counsel representing Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents.
The respondents filed O.S.No.122 of 2013 for declaration that the registered sale deed, dated 03.11.2009, is void and unenforceable and that the appellant has not acquired any rights of ownership or title over the suit schedule property and restrain him from dispossessing or evicting them from the suit schedule property. The respondents have also filed I.A.No.615 of 2013 for ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. They have also filed I.A.No.616 of 2013 for injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third parties. By common order, dated 05.12.2013, the lower Court has allowed both the applications. Feeling aggrieved by the said common order, the appellant filed C.M.A.No.1056 of 2013 against the order in I.A.No.615 of 2013 and the present CMA against the order in I.A.No.616 of 2013.
The learned counsel representing Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 12.03.2014, allowed C.M.A.No.1056 of 2013 and set aside the order of injunction granted in favour of the respondents and against the appellant in I.A.No.615 of 2013.
A perusal of the order, dated 12.03.2014, would show that the Division Bench has allowed the CMA on the short ground that the lower Court has relied upon certain documents which are not marked in evidence and that such a practice is not permissible. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the trial Court with a direction to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 60 of A.P.Civil Rules of Practice while disposing of the interlocutory application afresh.
Though Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, has made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the reasoning of the lower Court is faulty, I am not inclined to decide the case on merits, for the same reasons on which the Division Bench has set aside the order of the lower Court, this Court cannot decide the case on merits because to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is inevitable look into the recitals of the sale deeds which have not been marked by the lower Court. Unless the sale deeds are marked, neither party can rely upon the recitals therein and consequently, this Court is disabled from looking into these recitals. As the substantive application viz., I.A.No.615 of 2013 for injunction against the interference of the appellant, is remanded, it is appropriate that the present IA is also remanded to the lower Court for fresh disposal after marking the documents sought to be relied upon by both the parties.
Accordingly, the order under appeal is set aside and the IA is remanded to the lower Court for fresh disposal along with I.A.No.615 of 2013.
As a sequel to disposal of the civil miscellaneous appeal, C.M.A.M.P.No.237 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th June, 2014
VGB