Judgment:
ORDER
Syed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed questioning the order dated 20-9-1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Narsapur in I.A. No. 992/96 in O.S. No. 62/96.
2. Mr. Ramachandra Rao, Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Ist respondent-Subordinate Judge, Narsapur is in gross violation of the provisions of law and as such unsustainable. He submits that the 2nd respondent-vendor has entered into an agreement of sale on 22-4-1995 in respect of lands measuring Ac. 16.77 cents in R.S. No. 202/1, 202/2B, 203/1A 202/2A and 202/3B of Serepalem village, Mogalthuru S.R.O., West Godavari District. He further submits that at the time of execution of the agreement, he paid Rs. 7,22,350/- as advance out of the total consideration of Rs. 9,22,350/- and that the 2nd respondent has handed over the possession of the lands at the time of execution of the agreement of sale. The petitioner was ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- within the specified time, but the 2nd respondent-vendor did not come forward to perform his part of the contract.
3. The petitioner apprehending that the 2nd respondent-vendor was to enter into agreement with the third parties in respect of the lands sold to him, initiated legal action by filing a caveat on 8-7-1996 before the Ist respondent-Subordinate Judge, Narsapur. A copy of the caveat petition filed by the petitioner before the Ist respondent-Subordinate Judge is filed along with the C.R.P. as material papers.
4. As the case stood thus, the respondents 3 and 4 under the guardianship of their maternal grand-father i.e., Kunadaraju Gopaka Raju filed an application LA. No. 992/96 in O.S. No. 62/96 before the Subordinate Judge-1st respondent and obtained ex parte injunction orders on 20-9-1996 against the 2nd respondent and the petitioner herein restraining him from interfering with the suit schedule properties on the ground that they are absolute owners, and they have been allotted the said properties under a registered partition deed and as such, the 2nd respondent herein had no right, title or interest to enter into any agreement of sale with 3rd parties and that they are in effective possession of the said suit schedule properties.
5. Mr. Ramachandra Rao submits that the injunction order passed in LA. No. 992/96 in O.S. No. 62/96 by the 1st respondent-Subordinate Judge, Narsapur was invalid in law, inasmuch as the order was an ex parte order and was passed when caveat has already been filed by the petitioner Under Section 148-A of C.P.C. He further submits that as a caveator, the petitioner should have been given notice of the pending proceedings, and in support of his submission he relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in C. Seethaiah v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, : AIR1983AP443 (NRC), wherein it was held:
'Caveat lodged-Caveator not supplied copies of petition and documents filed along with petition, by petitioner-ex parte interim order passed against caveator invalid.'
6. Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submits that the respondents 3 and 4 herein who were the petitioners in I.A. No. 992/96 in O.S.62/96 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, have not been served with a copy of the caveat petition and as such, the question of the 1st respondent-Subordinate Judge not issuing the notice to the petitioner at the time of hearing and passing the impugned orders in LA. does not arise. The learned Counsel further states that Section 148-A of the C.P.C. is not at all applicable to the present case, and, therefore, the injunction order passed by the 1st respondent-Subordinate Judge in I.A. No. 992/96 in O.S. No. 62/96 is not invalid in law.
7. On a perusal of the copy of caveat petition which has been filed in material papers, it appears the respondents 3 and 4 were not at all made as parties and Mr. Ramachander Rao the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner admits the same, therefore, the 1st respondent - Subordinate Judge had not issued notice to the petitioner herein at the time of passing the ex parte order in I.A. No. 992/96 in O.S. No. 62/96 and as such, the impugned order is not invalid in law.
8. It is next contended by Mr. Ramachander Rao that respondents 3 and 4 are the sons of respondent No. 2, he has already received more than Rs. 7,00,000/- by entering into an agreement of sale with the petitioner. Now with an ulterior motive the 2nd respondent and his two sons under the guardianship of their maternal grand father set up title to the suit scheduled properties to defraud the petitioner.
9. I am afraid, this submission of Mr. Ramchander Rao is devoid of any substance and is not sustainable in law. If a person is entitled to file a suit, to safeguard his right, title and interest in the property, it cannot be said that it is abuse of process of Court, and the order thus passed is liable to be quashed. Hence, I see no merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
10. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the ex parte orders passed by the 1st respondent - Subordinate Judge, he has a right of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and it is open to the party to approach the Court which has passed orders, for vacating it and in support of his submission, he invited my attention to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in A. Balaiah v. Aravindanagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 1980(1) ALT 90, wherein their Lordships have held that:
'The power to issue an ex parte injunction is vested under Order 39, Rule 1 C.P.C. and the circumstances in which it could be granted ex parte are mentioned under Rule 3. Rule 3 does not deal with the power of the Court. Inasmuch as the power to make an ex parte injunction is traceable to only Order 39, Rule 1 C.P.C. and appeal lies under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. whether the ex parte order made under Order 39. Rule 1 C.P.C. satisfied the requirements of Order 39. Rule 3 C.P.C. as amended is a matter which affects the right of a party who seeks a remedy by way of appeal. In an appeal against the order granting temporary injunction ex parte the Court would certainly go into the question whether it conforms to the requirements of Rule 3. But then that is a matter affecting the right of the party to prefer an appeal or the power of the Court to entertain the same but one affecting the merits of the order, on an examination of which the appellate Court may or may not sustain the order.'
11. Further, the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd Mustaqum and Ors., : [1984]1SCR211 has dealt with the scope of jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-
'A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited 'to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority' and not to correct an error apparent on the facts of the record much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or re-weight the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.'
12. In view of what I have held, and the judgments referred to supra, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition.
13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue any alternative remedy available to him in accordance with law, if so advised. No costs.