CHENI CHENCHAIAH Vs. SHAIK ALI SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 264 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Sullurpet. He filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit premises. He has filed an application in LA. No. 286 of 1987 along with the suit for the grant of temporary injunction in which an ex parte temporary injunction was granted. But on 18-4-1988 the Court dismissed the petition I.A. No. 286 of 1987 for temporary injunction, on the ground that though the plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises, he failed to prove that he is the owner of the premises. The plaintiff-petitioner preferred an appeal C.M.A. No. 22 of 1988 before the Vacation Civil Judge i.e., the Additional District Judge," Nellore, on 3-5-1988. Along with the appeal he has filed an application I.A. No. 248 of 1988 for grant of temporary injunction and another application LA. No. 249 of 1988 for the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner. The petitioner alleges that before he could file the appeal in the Court on 3-5-1988, in the early hours of that day at about 2 a.m. the defendants have forcibly thrown out his belongings and evicted him from the suit premises. On 3-6-1988 an injunction was granted in I.A. No. 248 of 1988 in C.M.A. No. 22 of 1988, which was numbered after it was transferred to regular Court i.e., the Sub-Ordinate Judge's Court, Gudur. Against that C.R.P. No. 1949 of 1988 was filed by the respondents-defendants and this was disposed of on 1-8-1988 by Justice P. Kodanda Ramaiah, with a direction to maintain the status quo and directing the lower appellate Court to dispose of the C.M.A. within two months. Pending the Civil Revision Petition, there was interim suspension of the order of the lower Court. C.M.A. No. 22 of 1988 was allowed by the lower appellate Court on 16-10-1989 and a temporary injunction was granted, pending disposal of the suit. Against that Civil Revision Petition No. 553 of 1990 was filed by the respondents on 16-10-1990. But that C.R.P. was dismissed by Justice J. Eswara-Prasad, by his order dated 16-10-1990. Shortly, after the C.M.A. was allowed by the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Gudur, on 16-10-1989, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application I.A. No. 590 of 1989 on 8-12-1989 for restitution under S. 144 read with S. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. After the disposal of the C.R.P. No. 553 of 1990, the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, heard that application and dismissed it by his order dated 19-11-1991. The present civil revision petition is filed against the said order.

(2.) I would like to mention here that there is a small factual error in the order passed by the lower Court as the lower Court observed that the High Court directed maintenance of status quo in C.R.P. No. 553 of 1990, whereas the status quo order was passed by Justice P. Kodanda Ramaiah in C.R.P. No. 1949 of 1988 against the order passed in I.A. No. 248 of 1988. But that straight factual error is not of much consequence. So the position is that though the plaintiff was granted an ex parte temporary injunction in I. A. No. 286 of 1987 in O. S. No. 264 of 1987 by the learned District Munsif, Sullurpet, that application was dismissed on 18-4-1988. The appeal CM A. No. 22 of 1988 filed against that, was allowed and temporary injunction was granted and C.R.P. No. 553 of 1990 filed against the said order was dismissed by the High Court. In between the dismissal of I.A. No. 286 of 1987 and filing of the C.M.A. on 3-5-1988, the plaintiff-petitioner was dispossessed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, contended that since the plaintiff-petitioner had the injunction in his favour till the petition was dismissed on 18-4-1988, the appeal filed by him was allowed and the revision was also dismissed, he must be put back in the same position because he was dispossessed by the respondents-defendants in consequence of the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Sullurpet, which was reversed in appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that since the plaintiff-petitioner was not dispossessed by virtue of any order passed by the. Court and even according to the plaintiffs case, he was dispossessed forcibly by the defendants, S. 144of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not apply and the remedy open to the plaintiff-petitioner is only to file a separate suit for possession or to amend the prayer in the present suit and seek relief for possession.