HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
P.SREE SUDHA, J
M/s. Sreenidhi Pearl Spaces LLP – Appellant
Versus
Habeeb Mohsin – Respondent
CMA/199/2024
This appeal is filed against the orders dated 19.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.94 of 2024 in O.S.No.19 of 2024 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court has not disposed of I.A within the specified time as contemplated under Order 39 Rule (3) (a) (b) CPC provision. It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2/defendant No.2 filed counter but not pointed out any reason for not disposing the I.A within stipulated time and extended the interim order on 28.03.2024. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to set aside the order of the trial Court and remand the matter to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the I.A on merits.
4. It was further stated that O.S.No.19 of 2024 was filed by Sri Habeeb Mohsin/plaintiff against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 for permanent injunction in which he asked the Court to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and he relied upon unregistered agreement of sale dated 14.02.2005 but no sale deed was executed.
5. Subsequently, along with the suit I.A.No.94 of 2024 is also filed for ad-interim injunction and accordingly an order was passed on 19.02.2024 as follows:
6. Subsequently, a counter was filed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 on 04.03.2024 and mainly contended that in spite of disposing of the I.A on merits by hearing both sides, the Trial Court extended the interim orders and passed the following docket order on 28.03.2024 as follows:
7. In the order dated 19.02.2024 when the trial Court found that there was prima facie case, no reasons are assigned and it was not a speaking order. The documents filed by the plaintiff are not considered in the order and it was cryptic. Of course ad-interim injunction was granted till 01.03.2024 and notice was ordered under Order 39 Rule (3)(a)(b) CPC provisions.
8. Accordingly, after service of notice when the defendant no.2 herein filed the counter it is for the Court to hear both sides and to dispose of the I.A on merits but in spite of filing of the counter on 04.03.2024, the interim order was simply extended in spite of objection by petitioner counsel without any reason or basis. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the Trial Court is patently erroneous and liable to be set aside.
9. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 28.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.94 of 2024 in O.S.No.19 of 2024 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam and the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the I.A.No.94 of 2024 within 20 days i.e., on or before 29.04.2024 by taking into consider
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.