P KRISHNA Vs. K RAJAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Surender Rao, Counsel representing the Revision petitioner and Sri Madhusudhan Reddy, Counsel representing Sri Rajender Reddy, Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against an order dated 7-11-2003 made in I.A.No.903/2003 in O.S.No.1095/2003 on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The Revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant in the suit and 2nd respondent in the said application. On 21-11-2003 while ordering notice before admission and posting the matter for admission and disposal on 28-11-2003 pending passing of further orders it was directed that the impugned order shall not be given effect to and the said order was being extended from time to time.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 5 in the Revision filed O.S.No.1095/2003 for the relief of perpetual injunction and had also moved an application I.A.No.903/2003 on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for temporary injunction restraining respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs with the business in shop bearing No.B-35 situated at Bowenpally, Secunderabad. The interim injunction as prayed for was granted and the I.A. was originally posted to 14-11-2003 and it is represented that the matter had undergone several adjournments subsequent thereto. The main grievance ventilated by Sri Surender Rao, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner is that at the earliest point of time an objection relating to maintainability of the suit itself had been taken and elaborate counter was filed and despite repeated requests, the learned XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad had been postponing the matter and for reasons best known was not interested in disposing of the matter. The learned Counsel also pointed out that in fact even an application for advancement of hearing was made and in spite of serious attempts made on the part of the Revision petitioner, he was unsuccessful in getting the matter disposed of and in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances and also in view of the urgency involved in the matter, the Revision petitioner was constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel also maintained that though in normal circumstances as against an order made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. an Appeal lies, in the peculiar circumstances the jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on A.VENKATASUBBAIAH NAIDU Vs. S.CHELLAPPAN, SURYA DEV RAI Vs. CHANDER RAI and PUVVADA SRINIVAS AND ANOTHER Vs. P.CH.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY AND OTHERS. Per contra Sri Madhusudhan Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents 1 to 5, the plaintiffs in the suit had contended that the non-filing of the registration certificate relating to the registration of M/s.Veerabhadra & Co., is of no consequence at all and even otherwise this is a matter to be decided in the suit. The Counsel also would maintain that respondents 1 to 5 in the present Revision/plaintiffs in the suit, are the absolute owners and the licence holders of M/s.Veerabhadra & Co. The learned Counsel also submitted that there are no special, extraordinary or compelling circumstances which may entitle the Revision petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that definitely the petitioner is having an effective alternative remedy of filing of Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. The learned Counsel also submitted that the interim order made by this Court is causing lot of prejudice to respondents 1 to 5 and hence in any view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.