Y DASARATHARAMI REDDY Vs. Y VENUGOPAL REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against an order of the Vacation Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.340/90 in O.S.No.369/90 directing the petitioner not to dispose of item B of the suit schedule property and not to demolish the same. The said order was passed on the application made by the respondents for advancing the date of hearing of I.A.No.475/90, which was a petition filed by the respondents for granting a temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) The respondents filed I.A.No.475/90 on 22-3-90 and it was adjourned to 28-3-90 for appearance of the petitioner. It was subsequently adjourned to 22-6-90. The respondents filed I.A.No.340/90 before the Vacation Civil Judge for advancing the hearing of I.A.No.475/90. The learned Judge, instead of advancing I.A.No.475/90, issued an injunction order against the petitioner with which the petitioner is aggrieved.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri T.Jagdish, contended that the order in I.A.No.340/90 was made in violation the mandatory provisions of Rule 109 of the Civil Rules of Practice and that the Court has no jurisdiction to pass any orders without issuing a notice to the petitioner. He further contended that no order of injunction can be granted against the petitioner on a petition filed by the respondent for advancing the date of hearing of I.A.No.475/90.