THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3012 of 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated

05.06.2023 in I.A.No.489 of 2018 in O.S.No.330 of 2018 passed by the learned XXV-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Petitioner herein has filed an application vide I.A.No.489 of 2018 in O.S.No.330 of 2018, against the respondents, under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC, seeking to reject the plaint. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there is no real cause of action to file the suit and respondents No.1 to 4 have also filed claim petitions before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. So also, they are already punished under Section 36(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and thus it cannot be again prosecuted, as it amounts to double jeopardy. Therefore, requested the Court to reject the plaint.

4. Initially, respondents No.1 to 4 have filed a suit vide O.S.No.330 of 2018, against the petitioner and respondents No.5 to 13, seeking recovery of damages of Rs.5,00,00,000/- and stated that they are the family members of the persons who met with an accident. TGI Friday’s Bar and Restaurant is a leading American chain of Pubs and Restaurants. The first of its kind was established in the year 1965 in New York City and thereafter, it has been expanding to various continents. The said Bar and Restaurant runs under the name and style of M/s.Bistro Hospitality Pvt. Ltd./petitioner herein with its outlets in all major cities in the country. They have gained considerable business across the country. Respondent No.5 is one of such outlets in Hyderabad, represented by its representative/Franchisee, respondent No.6. Petitioner is having license bearing No.149/2008-09 to serve alcohol at the establishment of respondent No.5 issued by the Government of Telangana, empowering it to serve the same subject to the provisions/restrictions laid down under the Excise Act.

5. The allegation made by respondents No.1 to 4 is that petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 in violation of the restrictions not only served alcohol to the under aged minors including respondents No.8 and 9 and their friends i.e., respondents No.10 to 13 and also induced them to consume excessive alcohol under ‘Happy Hours’ scheme. ‘Happy Hours’ scheme should be avoided in order to reduce the problems of alcohol related violence and underage drinking. Institutes like MADD (Mothers against Drunken Driving), supports such bans. Though the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 are aware of the same failed to implement the same with due seriousness it deserves and it amounts to gross violation of the same.

6. Respondents No.1 to 4 further stated that on 01.07.2016, they were travelling in a car. While they were crossing Chutneys Restaurant, one Hyundai i10 car bearing No.AP 09 CP 5831, belonging to respondent No.7, driven by respondent No.9 in drunken and intoxicated state with six occupants i.e., respondents No.8 to 13, came in rash and negligent manner in high speed of about 110 KMPH hit the road divider, as a result, the car turned turtle and collided with their car, which was on the other side of the road divider, as such two of them sustained injuries and two of them succumbed to injuries and thus they claim damages of Rs.5,00,00,000/- against petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the petitioner herein for rejection of plaint, but it was dismissed by the trial Court on 05.06.2023.

Petitioner herein has also filed W.P.No.27403 of 2016 to suspend the proceedings dated 18.07.2016, cancelling their license without giving any opportunity of hearing. The trial Court held that the seizure of the premises of the petitioner is totally unauthorized and respondents shall remove