K VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. SAVERA LABORATORIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The purchaser from defendants 2 and 3 is the revision petitioner herein. The plaintiff claims to be owner of 1/3rd undivided share in the suitschedule land whereas the first defendant's contention is that he purchased Ac. 7-00 and odd from the second defendant, his daughter-in-law and son. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are the joint owners and claim to be in joint possession of the suit schedule property. The learned District Judge holding that the allegation that the second defendant is trying to create some documents in favour of the first defendant will not entitle the said persons to interfere with the joint possession of the plaintiff and his brothers and observing that the directions given by the learned Subordinate Judge that the first defendant should file a separate suit and get his share declared is not correct, held that it is for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and claim his l/3rd share if he does not want to continue his possession along with defendants 2 and 3. He accordingly granted interim suspension of the order in IA No. 101/91 in OS No. 16/91 while directing urgent notice to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent in IA No. 201/91 in CMA No. 10/91 has preferred the above revision petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that admittedly the plaintiff and the defendants have a share in the suit property, and that the order of the learned District Judge in suspending the order of injunction is a case of manifest error which is liable to be interfered with in this case.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge has granted an ex parte order of injunction; that against the said ex parte order of injunction, the first defendant preferred an appeal; that after the purchase of Ac. 7-40 cents out of the suit schedule land, the first defendant constructed a big factory called M/s. Savera Laboratories Ltd., for extracting bran oil at a cost of Rs. 5 crores; that the extraction of the oil in the factory was commenced on 26-1-91 and that the suit is filed for a declaration and injunction only to harass the first defendant and cause wrongful loss to the first defendant. The learned Counsel for the respondent-first defendant raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition against the interim order passed by the learned District Judge.