RODDE CHANDRAIAH Vs. RODDE MADUNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28-3-2007 in LA. No. 78 of 2007 in O. P. No. 18 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior civil Judge, Peddapalli. The revision petitioner is the first respondent in I. A. No. 78 of 2007.

(2.) The first respondent herein is the wife of the revision petitioner. She had earlier filed O. S. No. 124 of 2002 in the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar seeking maintenance. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 28-9-2002 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000.00 per month. Subsequently, the first respondent herein filed a fresh suit as informa pauper is for enhancement of maintenance from rs. 3,000.00 to Rs. 10,000.00 per month with retrospective effect. The said suit was registered on the file of the Court of the senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli as O. P. No. 18 of 2007. The first respondent also filed la. No. 78 of 2007 under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 Civil P.C. seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 4 herein from disbursing Rs. 4,00,000.00 out of rs. 12,00,000.00 payable to the revision petitioner (first respondent therein) towards retirement benefits. In the said application, the Court below, by order, dated 28-3-2007, issued ad interim injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 4 from disbursing the retirement benefits to the first respondent/ revision petitioner to the extent of the suit amount until further orders and posted the application to 11-4-2007 for counter. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition filed under Art. 227 of the constitution of India.

(3.) It is primarily contended by the petitioner that much prior to the filing of the suit for enhancement of maintenance, he had lodged a caveat on 15-3-2007 and pursuant thereto a notice was served on him in I. A. No. 78 of 2007 notifying that the said application was posted to 28-3-2007. Accordingly, the Counsel for the petitioner filed vakalath on 28-3-2007 and sought time for filing counter. However, without granting time for filing counter, the Court below had erroneously granted ad interim injunction until further orders, which is contrary to the object and purport of section 148-A of Code of Civil Procedure.