THOTAKURA SUBBARAO Vs. YELUBANDI SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "Code" by the appellant aggrieved by an order of status quo till 11-6-2003 granted in I.A.No.447/2003 in O.S.No.142 of 2003 dated 30-5-2003 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry.

(2.) In C.M.P.No.12356/2003 this Court granted interim suspension for a period of four weeks on 10-6-2003. The respondents in the Appeal filed C.M.P.No.12772/2003 in C.M.P.No.12356/2003 in the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to vacate the interim suspension and on the ground of urgency both the counsel had addressed elaborate arguments and a request was made to dispose of the main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself finally. Sri E.V.S.S.Ravi Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had submitted that the matter is in the nature of public interest litigation and though there is absolutely no material placed before the Court, the learned Vacation Civil Judge-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry had made an order of status quo till 11-6-2003.The learned Counsel also submitted that the suit O.S.No.142/2003 and I.A.No.445/2003 were transferred after vacation to the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada and they are renumbered as O.S.No.671/2003 and I.A.No.815/2003 respectively. The learned Counsel had taken me through the affidavit filed in support of the application praying for temporary injunction and had explained that absolutely there are no grounds at all since the rice mill is not in a nearby residential locality and absolutely there are no health hazards as complained by the respondents.The learned Counsel also had advanced elaborate arguments by placing reliance on Rule 26(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002 and had contended that at any rate it should be taken that there is deemed permission in relation to the construction of said rice mill. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the Certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board and had contended that though the respondents as petitioners/plaintiffs had not placed any material before the learned Judge, on such insufficient material an order of status quo till 11-6-2003 had been granted by virtue of which the appellant was put to heavy loss and under those circumstances the appellant had approached this Court and had obtained the interim suspension. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on E.MANGAMMA Vs. A.MUNISWAMY NAIDU, V.RAMA RAO Vs. KUNAPAREDDY BALAKOTAIAH, REV.T.ANANTHAM Vs. P.C. BENJAMIN.

(3.) Per contra Sri V.V.L.N.Sharma, the learned Counsel representing the respondents had submitted that this is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation and the respondents who are the petitioners in I.A.No.447/2003 and plaintiffs in O.S.No.147/2003 had instituted the suit raising several grounds by way of objections before the Vacation Civil Judge-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry and the learned Judge on perusing the material available on record and considering the objections raised in the pleadings and also in the affidavit filed in support of the application for temporary injunction had granted an order of status quo till 11-6-2003. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the present appellant in stead of moving the self-same Court or at present the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for vacating the said order under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code had approached this Court and obtained interim suspension for a particular period which is definitely unsustainable. The learned Counsel also submitted that inasmuch as only an order of status quo till a particular date had been granted, as against such an order, Appeal before this Court is definitely not maintainable. Strong reliance was placed on MIDCHE LINGE GOWDA Vs. CHANNAMMA, AKMAL ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on K.ABDUL MALIK Vs. D.SHAMA VALI and had contended that the better course would have been that the appellant could have approached the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for disposal of the application in accordance with law. No doubt, the learned Counsel also had pointed out to several of the grounds raised in the affidavit relating to the non-granting of permission by the Panchayat to raise the structures and several other substantial objections of similar nature.