NALLA RAJA REDDY Vs. B SHYAMSUNDER JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition presents a peculiar set of facts and question of law. The petitioner herein and respondents 2 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner) filed OS. No. 355 of 1988 against the 1st respondent and one Mr. G. Kumaraswamy in the Court of the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal, for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, they filed LA. No. 847/88 for temporary injunction. An ex parte injunction was granted on 29-12-1988. At the instance of the 1st respondent and the other defendants, the matter was advanced to 18-1-1989. In their counter, the 1st respondent stated that under the guise of the order of temporary injunction, the petitioner had undertaken construction work in the land belonging to the respondent No. 1. When the Counsel for the petitioner herein sought time, an undertaking was recorded that the petitioner shall not proceed with any construction. The matter was ultimately adjourned to 25-1-1989. Thereafter, the petitioner did not evince any interest and ultimately the suit itself was dismissed on 26-7-1994 since the Counsel reported no instructions. Accordingly, the order of ex parte injunction dated 29-12-1988 stood dissolved.

(2.) The 1st respondent and Mr. G. Kumaraswamy filed IA. No. 583/94 under Section 151 of CPC for grant of mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to restore status quo ante obtaining as on the date of grant of ex parte injunction. This IA was obviously filed subsequent to the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) The trial Court, after hearing the parties at length and discussing the facts as well as law on the subject, passed orders on 12-9-1994 granting the relief prayed in the IA. This order was sought to be executed by filing EP. No. 21/95 and the same was resisted by the petitioner. Their objection was that once the suit was dismissed way back on 26-7-1994, the trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the I.A. No. 583/94 and any order passed in the said IA in the suit, which was no longer on the file of the Court, was a nullity. The record does not disclose that there was any dispute as to the fact that the petitioner had undertaken construction after obtaining ex parte injunction order. The reports of the Commissioners appointed by the Court below speak to the said fact. The Executing Court repelled the contention of the petitioner and allowed the EP through order dated 5-12-1998 by directing the bailiff to remove the structures and restore status quo ante obtaining as on the date of ex parte injunction granted in I.A. No. 583/94 (sic. 847/88) in O.S.No. 355/88. This order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.