Judgment:
ORDER
N.D. Patnaik, J.
1. The petitioner herein filed a suit O.S.4030/1992 in the Court of the 6th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for certain reliefs. In that she had filed two petitions LA. Nos. 1603 and 1604 of 1992 for grant of temporary injunctions. The learned 6th Assistant Judge has granted an interim injunction in LA. 1603/92. Against that an appeal C.M.A.318/92 is filed before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2.The respondents filed a suitO.S.1209/1992 in the Court of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the plaintiff. They have filed a petition O.P.1076/1992 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court to transfer the suit O.S.4030/1992 in the court of the 6th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to the 4th Addl. Judge's Court to be tried along with O.S.1209/92. In that they have filed an application I.A.2498/1992 for stay of proceedings in the court of the 6th Assistant Judge pending disposal of the O.P. The learned Chief judge granted an ex parte interim stay of all the proceedings in O.S.4030/1992 in the court of the 6th Asst. Judge. Subsequently he modified the said order by confining the stay to the trial of the suit and not to the I.As. pending before the 6th Assistant Judge and also dismissed C.M.A.318/1992 with a direction to the 6th Assistant Judge to dispose of I. A.Nos. 1603 and 1604 of 1992 in O.S.4030/1992 within a period of 10 days from the date of the receipt of the said orders. Two revision petitions have been filed by the respondents against the said two orders i.e., C.R.P.Nos. 3638 and 3755 of 1992.
3. While so, the respondents have filed two other applications O.P.Nos. 1240 and 1241 of 1992 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to transfer O.S.4030/1992 on the file of the 6th Assistant Judge and O.S.1209/1992 on the file of the IV Additional Judge to the Court of the Chief Judge to be tried along with O.P.973/1992 filed by the petitioner herein. They filed an application I.A.2971/92 in O.P.I241 /92 for stay of the proceedings in the court of the 6th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.4030/92 and I.A.2970/92 for stay of proceedings in O.S.1209/92 in the court of the IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The learned Chief Judge passed an order in I.A.2971/92 in O.P. 1241 /92 directing interim stay of the proceed ings in O.S.4030/92 on the file of the 6th Asst.Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad subject to the orders of this Court in C.R.P.No. 3638/92. This revision is filed against the said order.
4. Mr. Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that inasmuch as the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad had passed orders in C.M.A.318/92 directing the 6th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to dispose of I.A.1603/92 and I.A.1604/92 in O.S.4030/92 within a period of 10 days, the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judge on 17th December, 1992 in I.A.2971/92 granting interim stay of the proceedings is quite contrary to the said order and therefore this order is liable to be set aside.
5. Sri Mohan Reddy, appearing for respondents 1, 3 and 5 and Mr. Cyril Reddy, appearing for the respondents 2 and 4 have contended that as transfer petitions are filed before the learned Chief Judge for consolidation of all the three matters i.e., O.S.4030/92 in the court of the 6th Assistant Judge and O.S.1209/92 in the Court of the IV Addl. Judge and O.P.973/92 it will be appropriate that the learned Chief Judge should pass orders in all the matters or this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 24 of the C.P.C. suo motu may transfer the suits to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court so that conflict of decisions should be avoided. But Mr. Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is opposing the transfer applications. Therefore, since the transfer petitions are pending before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which are being contested, 1 feel that it is not desirable at this stage for the High Court to invoke the suo motu power under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and transfer the suits to the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
6. As far as the C.R.P. is concerned, from the facts narrated above it can be seen that there are two orders passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. One is the order passed in C.M.A.318/92 directing the 6th Asst. Judge to dispose of I.As.1603 and 1604 of 1992 within 10 days and also modifying the earlier blanket stay granted in I.A.2498/92 in O.P.1076/92 only to the trial of the suit but not to the disposal of the interlocutory applications. The second order is the impugned order in I.A.2971/92 in O.P.1241 /92 whereby the learned Chief Judge granted interim stay of the proceedings in O.S.4030/92 in the court of the 6th Asst. Judge subject to the orders of the High Court in C.R.P.3638/92. Since C.R.Ps.3638/92 and 3755/92 are dismissed as withdrawn the orders passed in C.M.A.318/92 and the orders passed in I.A.2498/92 have become final. The impugned order may be considered in two parts i.e., (a) interim stay of the proceedings and (b) subject to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in C.R.P.3638/92 since C.R.P.3638/92 is dismissed thereby confirming the order of the learned Chief Judge in I.A.2498/92 in O.P.1076/92 modifying the stay order to the trial of the suit and not to the I.As., the result of the impugned order is that the interim stay granted by the learned Chief Judge in I.A.2971/92 only applies to the disposal of the suit O.S.4030/92 and not to the disposal of the I.As.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents have also taken a preliminary objection that the revision is not maintainable since it is only against an interlocutory order in view of the amendment made in 1976. Mr. Mohan Reddy has relied upon three decisions reported in K. Venkateswara Rao v. Savera Labs. Ltd., : 1991(2)ALT98 Venkataratnam v. Sravanti Devi, 1979 (1) ALT 396 and M/s. Vandana Cylinders (P) Ltd. v. State Bank of India, : 1992(1)ALT392 in support of his contention. The provision added by the amendment in 1976 says that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order except where-
(a) xxx xxx
(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.
So, an order can be interfered with if it occasions failure of justice. From what I understand from the statements made by the learned counsel on either side, a petition has been filed before the 6th Asst. Judge to advance the hearing of the I.As., 1603 and 1604 of 1992 immediately after the disposal of the C.R.Ps. by this court on 18-12-1992 and that was opposed. The learned 6th Assistant Judge who is faced with two orders referred to above was unable to proceed with the matter and I feel that it amounts to failure of justice because the Court is not able to proceed one way or the other with the matter. In this view of the matter, I am unable to agree with the objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the C.R.P.
8. As I have stated above, the order of the learned Chief Judge in I.A.2971 /92 in O.P.1241 /92 is only restricted to the trial of the suit O.S.4030/92 and not to the interlocutory applications. The C.R.P. is disposed of with the said direction. The learned Chief Judge is also directed to dispose of the O.Ps.1240 and 1241 of 1992 expeditiously preferably within two weeks and both the parties are directed to co-operate in the disposal of those O.Ps. Any observations made in this order shall not in any way affect the discretion of the learned Chief Judge, Hyderabad in disposing of the O.Ps.1240 and 1241 of 1992.
9. The Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.