A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited vs Gorantla Subba Rao and Another

S. Dasaradha Rama Reddy, J.—The respondent filed O.S. No. 18 of 1991 in the Court of Vacation Civil Judge, Guntur, against the petitioner and obtained ex parte ad interim injunction in I.A. No. 202 of 1991 on 14-5-1991 restraining the petitioner from encashing back guarantee for Rs. 1,00,000/-. When the Courts reopened after summer vacation, the suit was renumbered as O.S. No. 96 of 1991 and taken on the file of Sub-Judge, Narsaraopet who vacated the interim injunction on 25-9-1991 in LA. No. 712 of 1991 which was the number allotted on restoration to the normal Court. Against this order, the respondent filed C.M.A. No. 55 of 1991 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The learned District Judge allowed the CM. A., taking the view that the Sub-Judge cannot it in appeal over the judgment of superior Officer viz., the District Judge who was the Vacation Judge and that accordingly the order of Sub-Judge is without jurisdiction. Allowing the appeal, the learned District Judge passed the following order:

"In the result this appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside and the parties shall be placed in the same position as it existed before passing of the order appealed against. The costs in this appeal shall be governed by the result in the main suit".

Against this order, the petitioner who was the respondent in the appeal, has preferred this revision petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mrs. Sujata, contends that the order passed by the Subordinate Judge cannot be construed as an order sitting in appeal over the order passed by the Vacation District Judge and that the interim order passed by the Vacation Judge on 14-5-1991 by fiction of law stated in Section 32(5) of A.P. Civil Courts Act (for short ''the Act'') is deemed to be an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, who accordingly has got jurisdiction to vary, affirm or vacate the interim order granted. Sections 32(5) and (6) of the Act read as follows:

Section 32(5):

"On the reopening of the District Court, a Court of Subordinate Judge or a Court of District Munsif after the summer vacation, all suits, appeals, and other proceedings pending in the Court of the Vacation Civil Judge which, but for this section would have been instituted or pending in such District Court, Court of Subordinate Judge or Court of District Munsif as the case may be, shall stand transferred to the Court concerned and any judgment, decree, order or proceeding passed by the Vacation Civil Judge shall after such transfer, be deemed to be a judgment, decree order or proceeding passed by the Court concerned".

Section 32(6):

"Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-section (5), any appeal from the judgment, decree or order of the Court of the Vacation Civil Judge shall when such appeal is allowed by law, lie to the High Court".

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contends that the decision of this Court in Rev. T. Ananthan and others Vs. P.C. Benjamin and others, , relied on by the learned District Judge does not apply to the facts of the case since no appeal has been filed by the respondent herein against the order passed by the Vacation Judge and that the appeal preferred was only against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge. On the other hand, Smt. A. Anasuya, learned Counsel for the first respondent, relies on the very same decision and contends that the order passed by the III Additional District Judge is in accordance with law.

The learned III Additional District Judge has misconstrued and misunderstood the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in 1 supra. There the Vacation Civil Judge has passed an interim direction and without filing petition to vacate the same, the petitioner has preferred appeal to this Court. The plea taken by the respondent therein was that as the order is deemed to have been passed by the District Munsif, appeal does not lie to this Court and the appeal lies only to the Subordinate Judge''s Court or District Judge''s Court, as the case may be, rejecting the contention of the respondent, the Division Bench held that the order passed by the Vacation Sessions Judge continues to be the order passed by him after reopening of the Courts and that by virtue of Section 32(6), appeal lies only to this Court. It was also held that in all other matters, under fiction of law created in Sub-section (5), the order passed by the Vacation Civil Judge is deemed to be the order passed by the regular Court which would have entertained the suit but for the vacation. I fail to see how this decision helps the respondent. The facts in the present case are entirely different. Here, the ad interim injunction granted by the Vacation Civil Judge is deemed to have been passed by Sub-Court in view of fiction enacted in Section 32(5) and consequently on reopening of the Court after vacation, the Sub-Court has got jurisdiction to modify, affirm or dissolve the interim injunction. The Court , below has misconstrued it as if the Subordinate Judge has sat in appeal over the judgment of his Superior Officer viz., the District Judge. The decision of the Division Bench has no application whatsoever to the facts of this case.

Accordingly, I hold that C.M.A. No. 55 of 1991 filed before the III Additional District Judge is maintainable. The learned Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The C.R.P. is accordingly allowed with costs.