A separate suit for damages for violation of status quo orders is not maintainable when a remedy is available under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

JUDGMENT

1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the orders, dtd. 3/3/2020, dismissing I.A.No.1225 of 2018 in O.S.No.382 of 2015 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Sec. 151 CPC to reject the plaint.

2. Heard Sri T. Bal Murthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Sri D. Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. (a) The suit in O.S.No.382 of 2015 was filed for the relief of granting compensation of Rs.50, 00, 000.00 for publishing defamatory statement as a joint tort feasor of the defendants 1 and 2 by committing civil wrong during the subsistence of the orders of status quo, dtd. 22/11/2012, granted in I.A.No.1025 of 2012 in O.S.No.1595 of 2012 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

(b) The case as per the plaintiff is briefly like this: Initially, O.S.No.1595 of 2012 was filed along with a petition in I.A.No.1025 of 2012 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC against these defendants seeking an order restraining them from proceeding further by making use of the forged and fabricated documents in respect of the suit schedule property therein pending the suit and obtained an order of status quo, dtd. 22/11/2012. Pending the said order, a notice, dtd. 23/5/2015, was issued by the 3rd defendant, i.e., Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank, informing the plaintiff that the bank intended to invoke the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act", for short). On receipt of the said notice, on 28/5/2015, the plaintiff dispatched a reply informing defendant No.3 about granting of the order of status quo. The same was received by the defendant No.3 and acknowledged it on 29/5/2015. While the matter stood thus, on 20/8/2015, defendant No.3 issued a possession notice to the plaintiff and guarantor without caring the subsisting orders. The said notice was intentionally given wide publicity exceeding his authority and with a view to cause damage to the reputation and stature of the plaintiff's family and squeeze money under the threat of causing such damage, and therefore, it is a civil wrong of defamation. Therefore, the plaintiff, on 5/9/2015, got issued a notice to all the defendants calling upon them to compensate the plaintiff by paying Rs.50.00 lakhs towards the damage caused to the plaintiff and his family for the said civil wrong.

(c) Defendants 2 and 3 acknowledged the receipt of the notice on 7/9/2015. The 1st defendant received the notice on 7/9/2015 and the 4th defendant received the notice on 10/9/2015, as per the online track report of the Indian Postal service. None of these defendants responded to the notices. Hence, the suit was filed.

4. The defendants filed this petition in I.A.No.1225 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and Sec. 151 CPC to reject the plaint on the grounds of (i) cause of action does not survive in view of the subsequent events, (ii) barred by law and (iii) the remedy is otherwise, as follows:

"a) The cause of action for filing the present suit is publication of Sec. 13(4) notice in the newspapers on 25/8/2015 which is said to be in violation of status-quo orders passed in IA No.1025/12 in OS No.1595/2012. When OS 1595/2012 itself is dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction, the status-quo orders are automatically merged in the said judgment in OS 1595/2004 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge Court at Vijayawada and at present the alleged cause of action did not survive in view of subsequent events. Hence the suit is not maintainable in law (bound by law).

b) It is now well settled legal position that a suit claiming of damages for violating status quo orders on the basis of Sec. 13(4) notice is not maintainable in law, as the jurisdiction of civil Court is ousted under Sec