HIRANAND Vs. T N KHAMBATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by a judgment and Decree dated 11-7-2002 in A.S. No. 67 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the order dated 14-3-1995 made in LA. No. 795 of 1994 in LA. No. 1089 of 1991 in O.S. No. 596 of 1991 on the file of the learned 1 Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad dismissing the petition filed under Section 144 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for removal of constructions made by the appellants herein in premises No. 1-8-215/24, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad under the guise of status quo orders of the Court in LA. No. 1089 of 1991 and for restoration of the status quo as on the date of filing of LA. No. 1089 of 1991, was reversed and LA. No. 795 of 1994 was ordered as prayed for.

(2.) Originally, the said suit was filed by the petitioners herein (plaintiffs) against respondents 4 and 5 herein (defendants 1 and 2), but respondents 1 to 3 herein were added as defendants 3 to 5 by an order dated 5-11-1991 in LA. No. 1594 of 1991 in O.S. No. 596 of 1991. The suit was laid by the petitioners herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession in any manner including demolition with the constructions being carried on in the open space on the northern side of premises No. 1-8-215/24, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad. They also obtained ad interim injunction order. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed for default on 11-11-1993. It appears, no steps have been taken for restoration of the said suit. Thereafter, the present LA. No. 795 of 1994 was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein for removal of constructions made by the petitioners herein in premises No. 1-8-215/24, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad under the guise of status quo orders and subsequent temporary injunction prders passed in LA. No. 1089 of 1991, and thereby to restore status quo ante.

(3.) It was the case of respondents 1 to 3 herein i.e. petitioners in LA. No. 795 of 1994 that they are the owners of the property in premises No. 142/C, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad. On the south-eastern portion of their property, there is a road connectlng the main road (Prenderghast Road). The previous owner obtained a lay out sanction in the year 1960 for converting the land into plots. To the south of their compound wall, there was a 40' wide road, which was provided under the lay out. The mother of petitioner No. 1 herein purchased plot Nos. 18 and 19 in the year 1965. Thereafter, she sold plot No. 19 to somebody else and retained plot No. 18 admeasuring 266.66 sq. yards. Plot No. 18 is thus adjoining 40' wide road. While obtaining a lay out for another portion of the property in the year 1979, the land owners proposed to convert the land reserved for 40' wide road for a length of 80' as plot No. 6 flay out plan of 1970) and plot Nos. 18 and 19 (lay out plan of 1960) as plots 5, 4, 3 etc. While sanctioning the said lay out, plot Nos. 5 and 6 were shown as park. Later on, at the instance of the landlords, plot No. 5 was dereserved and plot No. 6 alone was retained for park, which is bounded by, East : Road, West : Plot No. 5, North : Premises No. 142/C (belonging to respondents 1 to 3 herein) and South : Plot No. 18, Petitioner No. 1 herein constructed the house in plot No. 18 up to boundary of road and/or plot No. 6 of 1970 lay out. Later on, the 1st petitioner herein made attempts to encroach the land covered by the park, portion after portion. In the suit filed by the petitioners against respondents 1 to 3 herein in O.S. No. 1727 of 1985, the 1st petitioner claimed that he had purchased 90 square yards of land to the north of their building from the original owner. But, the said suit was dismissed. Petitioner No. 1 herein also filed a suit in O.S. No. 117 of 1987, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the present suit in O.S. No. 596 of 1991 was filed and since no counter-affidavit was filed by respondents 4 and 5 herein, the petitioners herein could get a temporary injunction order. Under the guise of the said order, the petitioners herein completed the structures by encroaching upon the park area. Thereafter, they (respondents 1 to 3) herein were impleaded. But, the suit was dismissed for default on 11-11-1993. By making false allegations, the injunction was obtained and after the structures were raised, the plaintiffs got the suit dismissed for default. Since the suit itself has been finally dismissed, the constructions made during the period of operation of the interim order of status quo or temporary injunction order, have got to be removed and petitioners herein are not entitled to the benefit of such encroachments and/or constructions made under the shelter of interim orders when they did not succeed in the suit filed by them. Hence, the petition.