IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
N. Dayaram, S/o K. Narasimhan – Petitioner
Versus
Jaya Kumar, S/o. Late Narasimha Reddy and Anr. – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.1081 Of 2022
Decided On : 15-06-2023
Injunction - Cooperative Society - IPC, Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act, Mutually Aided Co-Op Society Act - Sections 409, 417, 418, 420, 5, 38 - The court granted ad-interim injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the society's properties. The trial court vacated the injunction due to the plaintiff's lack of cooperation. The plaintiff filed an application to set aside the order and restore the injunction. The court allowed the application and restored the injunction, emphasizing the need to dispose of the injunction application expeditiously in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against defendant No.1 to prevent alienation of the society's properties. The trial court initially granted ad-interim injunction, which was later vacated due to the plaintiff's lack of cooperation. The plaintiff then filed an application to set aside the order and restore the injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's decision to restore the injunction was justified, emphasizing the need to dispose of the injunction application expeditiously in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court was justified in granting the injunction by allowing the application filed under Section 151 of CPC to set aside the order and restore the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to dispose of the injunction application expeditiously in accordance with the mandate of Order XXXIX Rule 3-A CPC. It also highlighted the discretionary power inherent in every court to render justice and prevent abuse of its process.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was disposed with the direction for the trial court to expeditiously dispose of the injunction application in accordance with the law.
ORDER :
1. Defendant No.1, in the suit filed the above revision against the order 19.05.2022 in I.A.No.520 of 2022 in I.A.No.159 of 2021 in O.S.No.459 of 2021 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.
2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.459 of 2021 against defendants seeking perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.1, his men, agents, etc., from alienating the plaint schedule property.
3. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that the suit schedule property belongs to defendant No.2 Cooperative House Building Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘society’). Defendant No.1 is President and plaintiff is one of the members, of the society. Plaint schedule property was purchased by the society with the funds of the plaintiff and other members under registered sale deed, dated 24.10.2018. Plaintiff contributed Rs.10,50,000/-. Defendant No.1 developed hostile attitude towards the society and misappropriated huge money. Defendant No.1 failed to render accounts. Defendant No.1 got executed sham and nominal sale deed, dated 30.01.2020 in the name of his wife. Plaintiff lodged a complaint against defendant No.1 and others and the same was registered as crime No.367 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 418 and 420 of IPC, Section 5 of the Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act and section 38 of Mutually Aided Co-Op Society Act. Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet on the file of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class and the same is numbered as C.C.No.1365 of 2020.
4. Defendant No.1 and other members voluntarily resigned to the post of President, on 08.06.2020. Resignation was accepted by the society and one V. Thandavamoorthy was nominated as convener for conducting the elections and to look after the affairs of the society. A new body is yet to be elected. Taking advantage of covid-19 pandemic situation, defendant No.1 with a dishonest intention is trying to alienate the suit schedule property in the names of kith and kin and is acting detrimental to the bye laws of the society. Hence, the suit was filed seeking perpetual injunction.
5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and contended, inter alia, that suit schedule property was purchased with the funds of plaintiff and other members under registered sale deed, dated 24.10.2018. Plaintiff’s membership was terminated in pursuance of general body meeting and executive committee meeting held on 27.07.2020 and 12.10.2021 respectively. The share capital of the plaintiff will be refunded after deducting expenditure, etc. Defendant No.2, society was registered under Section 5 of the Cooperative Societies Act on 27.02.2018 and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. V. Thandavamoorthy was removed as member of the society and his share capital was refunded to him on 11.01.2021.
6. Elections to the society were conducted on 27.07.2020 and in the said elections defendant No.1 was elected as President. Defendant No.1 never made any attempts to alienate the suit schedule property in the name of his kith and kin. If plaintiff has got any right with regard to the society, he has to invoke provisions of Societies Act. Eventually, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
7. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.159 of 2021 for grant of ad-interim injunction. By order, dated 11.06.2021, trial Court granted ad-interim injunction restraining defendant No.1 or his men, agents, servants or his assignees from alienating the petition schedule properties till 26.07.2021 subject to compliance of Proviso (a) and (b) of Rule 3 under Order XXXIX CPC, etc.
8. Defendant No.1 filed counter and reported ready for hearing I.A.No.159 of 2021.
9. On 10.05.2022, trial Court did not extend interim order and further endorsed that interim order granted on 11.06.2021 is vacated. However, I.A. was adjourned to 24.06.2022.
10. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.520 of 2022 under Section 151 of CPC to set
The discretionary power inherent in every court to render justice and prevent abuse of its process, as well as the need to dispose of injunction applications expeditiously in accordance with the law.
Temporary injunctions must align with the relief sought in the main suit; granting relief beyond this scope is impermissible.
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC cannot override specific provisions regarding temporary injunctions, and parties must be given a chance to amend pleadings befor....
The presence of all co-defendants is essential in partition suits to ensure comprehensive adjudication of property rights; exoneration without full consideration threatens legal integrity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that inherent powers of the court should supplement, not replace, remedies provided in the law. The court emphasized the need for immediate relief ....
Point of law: If an injunction is obtained falsely stating that High Court has refused to grant an injunction and when the same is also not considered on main and it will be considered along with mai....
Temporary injunction – Party approaching Court is not entitled to order of injunction as a matter of right – Grant of interim injunction/permanent injunction is discretionary in nature.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.