THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3921 OF 2007 DT.01.07.2010 Between:
M/s.Vijaya Durga Estates and another Vs.
G.Ramana Reddy and five others … Petitioners … Respondents.
O R D E R:
Heard Sri R.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners who are defendants filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 01.08.2007 passed in I.A.No.359 of 2007 in O.S.No.640 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder the application purported to have been filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 read with 151 C.P.C., seeking to reject the plaint was dismissed.
The suit was filed by the respondents herein for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any other persons claiming through or under them from alienating the suit schedule property or creating any charge over the same in favour of any third party.
The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents plaintiffs have initiated parallel proceedings before the Company Law Board with C.P.No.4 of 2007 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 and that therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs cannot invoke jurisdiction of the court below under Section 10 of the Companies Act. The learned counsel also submits that by placing reliance on the commentary laid down in the Company Law Digest 1956 to 1999, the court below dismissed the application without conducting any enquiry. Hence, the present revision petition is filed.
Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the material placed before this court, it is seen that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the parallel proceedings and further, the present application was disposed of without proper enquiry and dis-allowed the parties to produce evidence. In the absence of any material to show as to whether parallel proceedings have been taken up under the Companies Act, it is not proper on the part of the court below to give such a conclusion. Hence, the matter requires re-consideration.
The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration on merits, after giving an opportunity to both sides. No order as to costs.
B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.01.07.2010 tjs