RAJA RAMAKARAN Vs. B RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff. The plaintiff field the suit being O.S No. 1351/81 for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from interfering with his peaceful possession of the land measuring 5,000 sq. yds in S. No. 129/56 (T.S. No. 19). Shaikpet village, Banjara Hills, Road No. 14, Hyderabad. In the interlocutory application the trial Court granted ex parte interim injunction order on 27-11-1981 and posted the same to 20-1-1982. The defendant moved an application the hearing of I.A. No. 1261/81 for advancing the hearing of I.A. No. 1261/81 and thereupon the hearing of the petition was advanced to 4-12-1981, On 4-12-1981 it was adjourned to 8-12-1981. Meanwhile on 4-12-1981 the defendant field an appeal as against the exparte interim injunction order dt. 27-11-1981. Pending the appeal being C.M.A. No. 359/81 in the court of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, he also moved an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1199/81 for suspension of the order passed by the 4th Addl. Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Appellate Court by an order dt. 4-12-1981 granted interim suspension of the operation of the ex parte interim injunction order. As against the order passed by the Appellate Court, the plaintiff filed the Revision Petition in this Court and the Revision Petition was admitted and interim suspension of the order of the appellate Court was granted by this court 7-12-1981.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appellate Court 1982 Andh. Pra/17 . VII G-13 acted in material irregularity in exercise of appellate jurisdiction and that grave injustice resulted in passing such order and the defendant having chosen the remedy of invoking the trial Court for vacating the ex parte injunction order, is precluded from filing the appeal and in the circumstances the appeal should not have been entertained and the ex parte suspension order should not have been passed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is open to the defendant to invoke the appellate authority by way of an appeal as the defendant was aggrieved by the ex parte injunction order and the remedy chosen by him cannot be questioned by the plaintiff and there is absolutely no irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction by the Appellate Court and that the order of the Appellate Court passed in exercise of discretion, cannot be the subject matter of interference under S. 115, C.P. C by this Court.