2022 Supreme(AP) 905

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Bandaru Syamsunder, J.
K. Govindamma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
R. Venkayamma & Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P. Nos. 4622 and 4626 of 2015
Decided On : 14-09-2022

A defendant cannot seek relief against a plaintiff by filing a petition under Section 94(e) CPC unless there is a counterclaim or set off filed by the defendant in the suit.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 94(E) - INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - MAINTENANCE OF STATUS QUO - LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - DISBURSEMENT - DISPUTE OVER TITLE - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - LIS PENDENS - DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS - APPLICABILITY - INTERIM INJUNCTION - NECESSITY - COUNTERCLAIM OR SET OFF - REQUIREMENT.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule properties, including land in Sy. No. 36/1 of Pelluru village (item No. 13). They also sought cancellation of settlement deeds and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from releasing the compensation amount for item No. 13. The defendants filed petitions under Section 94(e) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking to direct the plaintiffs to deposit the compensation amount received by them for item No. 13 and to direct the land acquisition authorities to deposit the entire compensation amount for the land in Sy. No. 36/1, including the amount released for 40 cents of land.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitions filed by the defendants under Section 94(e) CPC were not maintainable as there was no pleading or counterclaim in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The court observed that the defendants could not seek relief against the plaintiffs by filing a petition under Section 94(e) CPC unless there was a counterclaim or set off filed by them in the suit. The court further held that the trial court erred in directing the plaintiffs to deposit the compensation amount received by Smt. Sirisha Reddy, who was not a party to the suit, and in directing the land acquisition authorities to deposit the entire compensation amount for the land in Sy. No. 36/1, including the amount released for 40 cents of land.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitions filed by the defendants under Section 94(e) CPC were maintainable in the absence of a pleading or counterclaim in the suit filed by the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the trial court erred in directing the plaintiffs to deposit the compensation amount received by Smt. Sirisha Reddy, who was not a party to the suit? 3. Whether the trial court erred in directing the land acquisition authorities to deposit the entire compensation amount for the land in Sy. No. 36/1, including the amount released for 40 cents of land?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 94(e) CPC allows the court to make interlocutory orders to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. However, such orders can only be made in the context of a pending suit and cannot be used to grant relief to a defendant against a plaintiff in the absence of a counterclaim or set off filed by the defendant. 2. The doctrine of lis pendens applies to property that is the subject of a pending lawsuit. Once a lawsuit is filed, any subsequent transfer or alienation of the property is subject to the outcome of the lawsuit. In the present case, the land in Sy. No. 36/1 was the subject of a pending suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession. Therefore, the settlement deeds executed by the plaintiffs in favor of Smt. Sirisha Reddy during the pendency of the suit were subject to the outcome of the suit. 3. The trial court erred in directing the plaintiffs to deposit the compensation amount received by Smt. Sirisha Reddy, who was not a party to the suit. The court also erred in directing the land acquisition authorities to deposit the entire compensation amount for the land in Sy. No. 36/1, including the amount released for 40 cents of land, as the question of disbursement and alienation of item No. 13 by the plaintiffs could only be decided in the main suit and not in the interlocutory applications.

Final Decision: The court allowed both civil revision petitions and set aside the orders passed by the trial court in the petitions filed by the defendants under Section 94(e) CPC. The court dismissed the petitions and directed the trial court to dispose of the main suit within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.