MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) ). THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order passed by the vi Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I. A. No. 133 of 1989 in o. S. No. 1813 of 1986, Dated 18-12-1989.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised in this Revision Petition, it is necessary to state few facts of the case.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the first defendant and the first respondent herein is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1813/86. The suit was instituted against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein for perpetual injunction in respect of the premises bearing No. 10-4-771/643/1, Plot No. 2 in Survey No. 27 Masabtank, Hyderabad. In the said suit, an application for interim injunction was filed which was granted by the Court. In the guise of interim orders, the first respondent made some improvements and additions to the suit premises by way of some constructions. While so, against the order of interim injunction, the matter was carried to the High Court by the petitioner-defendant No. l in C. R. P. No. 1162 of 1989 wherein an undertaking was given by the 1st respondent-plaintiff that he would not alter the nature of the suit premises or induct third parties to the suit premises.

( 4 ) IN an application filed by the petitioner-def endant No. 1, the Sixth Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad granted an injunction restraining the 1st respondent-plaintiff from altering the nature of the suit premises. As the first respondent-plaintiff violated the orders passed by the lower Court, the petitioner- defendant No. 1 filed another application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the civil Procedure Code for punishing the first respondent-plaintiff for violation of orders of the Court. That petition was ordered. Subsequently, E. P. No. 1 of 1989 was filed for execution of the orders passed in the said petition. As the attachment was not properly effected, the petitioner-defendant No. 1 filed e. A. No. 47 of 1989 for grant of fresh warrant of attachment of the suit property.

( 5 ) AS things stood thus, the first respondent -. plaintiff filed I. A. No. 133 of 1989 under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code praying the Court below to permit him to withdraw the suit, as he had already instituted a suit in the court of First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for specific performance of a contract, alleged to have been entered into between him and the petitioner-defendant No. 1. While allowing the said application, the Court below at the first instance directed the first respondent-plaintiff to remove all the amenities that he enjoyed by virtue of interim injunction granted earlier by the Court below, and restore it to same position as it existed at the time of institution of the suit. Against the said direction the plaintiff carried the matter by way of C. R. P. No. 1117 of 1989 to this Court. The said C. R. P. was disposed of while observing that the petitioner-defendant No. 1 had no opportunity to file counter. Therefore, while permitting the petitioner-defendant No. 1 to file a counter, in the Court below, the Court below was directed to pass appropriate orders according to law. In C. R. P. No. 1117 of 1989 the Court also made an observation as under:"the advantages derived by the petitioner (plaintiff in the suit) by virtue of the interim order should not be allowed to be continued".

( 6 ) SRI B. Veerabhadra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the lower Court while allowing I. A. No. 133 of 1989 filed under Order XXIII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code has failed to take note of the fact that this Court while disposing of C. R. P. No. 1117of 1989 observed that the advantages derived by the 1st respondent-plaintiff by virtue of the interim order should not be allowed to be continued, Therefore, while permitting the 1st respondent- plaintiff to withdraw the suit, the lower Court ought to have directed the first respondent-plaintiff to restore back the positi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document