KASI VISWESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE BOTHNPUDI Vs. GULLAPATTI RANTAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil revision petitions arise against two different orders refusing to re-open the I. As. which were ordered. Since the substance of the orders is the same, the two civil revision petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. The facts are that the petitioners are the plaintiffs. They filed the suits against two tenants for recovery of certain amounts alleged to be due as arrears of rent payable by them. Pending the suits, they filed applications under Order 40, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, for appointment of a Receiver. In those applications, the trial Court passed an order directing the tenants to furnish security. Accordingly third party immoveable property security was offerred and accepted. Since they are unregistered bonds and now this Court has laid down in Purra Pentaiah v. Madam Pandy, (1980) 2 A. P. L. J. 103 A. I. R. 1980 A. P 290 that they are compulserily registerable, they are now seeking to reopen and to get those bonds registered. Those applications were dismissed by the lower Court holding that the applications do aot lie. Section 94 (a) provides the power of the Court with regard to supplemental proceeding. It postulates that in order to prevant the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may if it is so prescribed such other interlocutary orders as may appear to the Court to be just and covenient. Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, also inhers in the Court the power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevant the abuse of the process of the Court. In these cases in view of the law laid down by this Court that the security bonds are compulsorily registerable, and also in view of the fact that in the event of their succeeding in the suits, obstacles may be placed in their way for their enforcement, they are seeking the matter to be reopened so that the bonds already filed can not be registered. To meet such eventualities and to prevent the ends of justice being defeated, it is expedient that the powers of the Court under sections, 94 (e) and 151, Civil Procedure Code, are called upon the exercise and the lower Court ought to have exercised the same. As it failed to exercise, it warrants interference by this Court Accordingly, the two Civil Revision Petitions are allowed the orders of the lower Court are set aside and the lower Court is directed to re-open the matter and dispose of the same according to law. It is open to the respondents to file such bonds are permissible under law. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Revision petitions allowed.