SHARIEFFUDDIN Vs. SYED ANWAR MOHIDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Rudra, the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents/ defendants. The learned Counsel had pointed out that an order of Status quo was ordered without recording reasons. The learned counsel with all vehemence had submitted that the learned Senior Civil Judge at Medak noticing that a caveat had been lodged by one defendant against other defendant, had erred in making an order of Status quo, without ordering notice. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on C. Seethaiah v. Govt. Andhra Pradesh. The learned counsel for the appellants while elaborating the submissions had pointed out that it is mandatory to record reasons while granting an ex parte order of status quo. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on M/s. Paro Food Products v. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bacharaj Singhvi v. Hastimal Kothari and Syed Shameer Makandar and others v. Syed Ahmed.

(2.) Heard the counsel at length.

(3.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filedunder Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'code' in short), aggrieved by an order of Status quo dated 29-1-2003 made in I.A.No.35 of 2003 in O.S.No.5 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak. The grievan~es of the appellants as ventilated by the learned counsel representing the appellants Mr. Raj Kumar Rudra are of two fold. The first objection is that no reasons had been recorded while making ex parte order of status quo on 29-1-2003. The learned counsel had placed strong reliance on M/s. Paw Food Products's case (2 supra), Bacharaj Singhvi's case (3 supra) and Syed Shameer Makandar's case (4 supra). There cannot be any controversy relating to this aspect. The impugned order reads as follows,