@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.@mdashC.R.P.M.P. No. 927 of 2009 is filed by the respondent to vacate the order of status quo, dated 27.01.2009, granted in C.R.P.M.P. No. 7366 of 2008 in C.R.P. No. 5530 of 2008.
2. Likewise, the respondent filed C.R.P.M.P. No. 929 of 2009 to vacate the order of status quo, dated 27.01.2009, granted in C.R.P.M.P. No. 7376 of 2008 in C.R.P. No. 5537 of 2008.
3. When these vacate applications were taken up for hearing, the counsel representing the parties made submissions at length in both the civil revision petitions and also further made a request for final disposal of the civil revision petitions themselves. Hence, these civil revision petitions are being disposed of finally by this Court.
4. Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner in both the civil revision petitions had taken this Court through the common order made by the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, and would maintain that the learned Judge totally erred in granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and negativing the temporary injunction prayed for in favour of the petitioner in the respective O.Ps. The counsel also pointed out to the documents relied upon by the parties and further pointed out to Rule 5(c) of the Rules governing the society and would maintain that the respondent submitted a false return to the District Registrar on 28.5.2008 regarding change of name of the Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the society by forging the signatures. The learned Counsel also made elaborate submissions relating to Ex.B-17 and Ex.B-18 and would maintain that the learned Principal District Judge had not decided the impact of these documents in proper perspective, even otherwise these documents were not considered in elaboration. The counsel also would maintain that even as per Ex.B-1 memorandum it is clear that the petitioner has been the founder-secretary and continues to be so and when specific stand had been taken relating to the forgery of signatures, this being a question of fact, inasmuch as at interlocutory stage it is not possible to decide the question to hold that respondent is having prima facie case or balance of convenience for granting temporary injunction, definitely cannot be sustained. A person who approaches the Court praying for temporary injunction may have to approach the Court with clean hands. Since the respondent approached the Court by suppressing the facts and with unclean hands, definitely he is not entitled to the relief of temporary injunction, which is an equitable relief. Even otherwise, the counsel would maintain that in relation to internal affairs of educational institutions, courts should be slow in making such orders. The counsel also would maintain that by virtue of the order made, the revision petitioner is not permitted to enter the premises at all and virtually he is being restrained even from acting as president. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the elaborate grounds raised in these civil revision petitions and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances if the court is satisfied that both the petitioner and respondent are not having strong prima facie case, it would be just and proper to entrust management to some committee to be constituted by this Court or appropriate directions to be given in this regard for the purpose of smooth functioning of the educational institutions. The learned Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.
5. Per contra, Sri C. Raghu, learned Counsel representing the respondent in both these civil revision petitions had taken this Court through the contents of the order under challenge, the documents relied upon by the parties and would maintain that in the light of the material available on record, the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, recorded appropriate findings and came to the conclusion that on the relevant day since the respondent had been acting as secretary, it would be just and proper to continue the same state of things and accordingly granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and negatived the temporary injunction prayed for by the revision petitioner. It is also further stated that even if the order of status quo granted by this Court to be taken into consideration, this would mean that the person who had been acting as Secretary on a particular date, the filing of the respective O.Ps. to be continued as Secretary till the disposal of the O.Ps. The counsel also wouk maintain that however unfortunately under the guise of the order of status guo the petitioner has been interfering with the management of the society all through at the time of filing of these O.Ps. and inasmuch as the documents relied upon by the respondent would clearly go to show that he has been managing the society, to have a smooth functioning of the educational institutions and to safeguard the interest of the running of the educational institutions the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, came to the conclusion that it would be just and proper to permit the respondent to be the secretary till the disposal of these O.Ps. The learned Counsel also made clear that none is interfering with the right of the revision petitioner to be the president and the relief granted in favour of the respondent and also the relief negatived in relation to the petitioner, these deal with the office of the Secretary and Secretary alone and, hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the status quo to be continued, the status quo to be clarified by this Court, especially in the light of Exhibit A-series and accordingly these civil revision petitions may have to be dismissed.
6. In the light of the submissions made by the respective counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in these civil revision petitions.
(1) Whether the order made in I.A. No. 2113 of 2008 in O.P. No. 605 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, negativing the relief of temporary injunction in favour of the revision petitioner to be confirmed or to be disturbed, in the facts and circumstances of the case?
(2) Whether the temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondent herein in I.A. No. 2540 of 2008 in O.P. No. 692 of 2008 to be confirmed or to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case?
(3) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled?
7. Point Nos. 1 and 2:
Inasmuch as both the applications in both the O.Ps. aforesaid had been disposed of by a common order, for the purpose of convenience, these points are being discussed together.
8. C.R.P. No. 5530 of 2008 is filed as against an order made dismissing I.A. No. 2113 of 2008 in O.P. No. 605 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, wherein the revision petitioner prayed for temporary injunction restraining the respondent therein i.e., the respondent in the civil revision petition, from holding any meeting in the capacity of Secretary-cum-Correspondent of Sri Krishna Veni Educational Society or from in any way interfering with the activities of the society, in particular, the functions and duties of the Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the society.
9. Likewise, C.R.P. No. 5537 of 2008 is filed as against an order granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent herein, petitioner in I.A. No. 2540 in O.P. No. 692 of 2008. The said application was filed praying for temporary injunction restraining the revision petitioner, the respondent in the application, from interfering with the activities of Sri Krishna Veni Educational Society and colleges established by the society in any manner.
10. By a common order, the learned judge dismissed the application I.A. No. 2113 of 2008 in O.P. No. 605 of 2008 and allowed the application I.A. No. 2540 of 2008 in O.P. No. 692 of 2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions had been preferred.
11. The respondent herein in these civil revision petitions relied on the under noted documents:
Ex.A-1/18.8.1997: Lease deed between M. Satya Srinivas and Boppana
Krishna Chowdary.
Ex. A-2/31.7.1997: P/c. rent agreement between Boppana Krishna Chowdary
and owner of the land.
Ex.A-3/25.6.2001: Proceedings of A.P. State Council of Higher Education
addressed to Boppana Krishna Chowdary.
Ex.A-4/5.3.2001: Lease deed between B. Krishna Chowdary and
A.V.R. Chowdary.
Ex.A-5/15.3.2001: Lease deed.
Ex.A-6/194.2003: Proceedings of Andhra university regarding to the decree
college.
Ex.A-7: Form-2 application for sanction of Additional Sections.
Ex.A-8/10.4.2001: Sale deed of Boppana Krishna Chowdary
Ex.A-9: Employees provident fund papers.
Ex.A-10/18.11.2008: C.C. of order in I.A. 977/08 in O.S. No. 367/08
P.J.C.J, Tanuku.
Ex.A-11/8.4.2003: Circular and resolution passed by Boppana Krishna
Chowdary in the capacity of Secretary cum
Correspondent on behalf of the Krishnaveni
Educational Society.
Ex.A-12/28.5.2008: Memorandum of District Registrar.
Ex.A-13/16.9.2002: List of Executive members of the committee from
1998 to 2003.
Ex.A-14:2.7.2008: Complaint given by Boppana Krishna Chowdary for the
theft in their office.
12. Likewise, the revision petitioner relied on the under noted documents.
Ex.B-1: C.C. of memorandum and bye-laws of Sri Krishna Veni
Educational Society.
Ex.B-2: Certificate of registration issued by the District Registrar
of Societies, Bhimavaram.
Ex.B-3/2.4.2008: Memorandum issued by the District Registrar,
Bhimavaram acknowledging the receipt of list of
governing body members for the years 2003-04 to
2007-08 i.e., for 5 years.
Ex.B-4/1.7.2008: Notice of meeting issued on behalf of the society.
Ex.B-5: Acknowledgment from Boppana Krishna Chowdary.
Ex.B-6/4.7.2008: Resolution passed by Gangrothu Jyothi, executive of
Sri Krishnaveni Educational society, Tanuku.
Ex.B-7/7.7.2008: Show cause notice issued by the society to Boppana
Krishna Chowdary.
Ex.B-8/15.7.2008: Resolution passed by the society expelling Boppana
Krishna Chowdary from the society.
Ex.B-9/26.6.2008: Complaint given against Boppana Krishna Chowdary to
Town P.S., Tanuku.
Ex.B-10/30.6.2008: Paper publication issued on behalf of Boppana Krishna
Chowdary in Eenadu Daily District Edition.
Ex.B-11/2.7.2008: Paper publication issued on behalf of Boppana Krishna
Chowdary in Eenadu Daily District Edition.
Ex.B-12/3.7.2008: Paper publication issued on behalf of Boppana Krishna
Chowdary in Eenadu Daily District Edition.
Ex.B-13/15.7.2008: Paper publication issued on behalf of Boppana Krishna
Chowdary in Eenadu Daily District Edition.
Ex.B-14/20.5.2008: Letter submitted by Boppana Krishna Chowdary along
with enclosures to the District Registrar, Bhimavaram.
Ex.B-15: Documents submitted by Boppana Krishna Chowdary
to the District Registrar, Bhimavaram.
Ex.B-16: List of executive members of the society issued by
District Registrar, Bhimavaram.
Ex.B-17/14.10.2008: Endorsement given by the District Registrar,
Bhimavaram bearing No. RTI/705/2008.
Ex.B-18/5.11.2008: O/c. of the registered letter sent by M.S.R. Srinivas to
the District Registrar, Bhimavaram.
13. Before taking up further discussion, it may be appropriate to have a glance at the respective stands taken by the parties in the affidavits filed in respect of these applications and the counters.
14. At the outset, it may be stated that the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application I.A. No. 2113 of 2008 in O.P. No. 605 of 2008, the same averments were made in the counter filed by the said petitioner as respondent in I.A. No. 2540 of 2008 in O.P. No. 692 of 2008. Likewise, the stand taken by the present respondent, the respondent in I.A. No. 2113 of 2008 in O.P. No. 605 of 2008, in the counter filed the self same stand had been taken in the affidavit filed in support of the application I.A. No. 2540 of 2008 in O.P. No. 692 of 2008. Hence, suffice to state that for the purpose of deciding these applications the stands taken by the respective parties in one of these matters are taken into consideration, since no further additional facts as such had been narrated.
15. The respective reliefs prayed for already had been specified supra. As per the case of the petitioner Sri Krishna Veni Educational Society is a registered body, registered under the provisions of A.P. Societies Act in the year 1997 and the object of the society is to promote the education activities and for the purpose of running educational institutions.
16. It is also stated that as per the bye-laws of the society, the executive shall consist of members of which the Secretary-cum-Correspondent shall represent the society in all activities. According to the petitioner, he is the founder cum-Correspondent of the society since 1997 and he has not so far resigned for the said post and regularly submitting returns to the District Registrar for renewal and discharging duties of the Secretary-cum-Correspondent till now.
17. Further it is averred that while the matters stood like thus, since June 2008 the respondent started proclaiming himself as Secretary-cum-Correspondent and the petitioner came to know that the respondent had submitted fabricated and false documents to the District Registrar and obtained amended list of executive members. The District Registrar had issued proceedings in a routine manner without any inquiry and without applying his mind and on the basis of said proceedings, the respondent is trying to interfere with his duties and functions as Secretary-cum-Correspondent.
18. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per the resolution passed in the executive committee meeting on 4.7.2008 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 7.7.2008 as to why he should not be expelled. Since the respondent intentionally avoided giving explanation, the executive committee passed a resolution expelling the respondent from the society. As per Rule 7 of the bye-law, the Secretary-cum-Correspondent can expel any member from the society.
19. Further it is stated that the respondent issued paper publication on 15.7.2008 to the effect that the executive committee meeting of the society is going to be held on 17.7.2008 and created confusion in the minds of the public. Hence, while dispensing with any prior notice, it is necessary to grant interim injunction since prima facie case, balance of convenience is also in his favour.
20. The respondent in both these matters had taken a stand denying such averments made and specific stand had been taken that Sri Krishna Veni Educational Society is a registered one under the provisions of A.P. Societies Act in the year 1997 with an object to promote educational activities in and around Tanuku town and the petitioner started a junior college in the first instance. It is true that Secretary-cum-Correspondent is the authorized person to act on behalf of the society in all aspects. The respondent is the Secretary-cum-Correspondent, but not the petitioner as alleged in the petition. The petitioner himself mentioned in counter in I.A. No. 2540 of 2008 in O.P. No. 692 of 2008 that he had approached the District Registrar, Bhimavaram, and obtained some papers under Right to Information Act and the Registrar furnished the information stating that Boppana Krishna Chowdary (respondent) is the President of Sri Krishna Veni Educational Society, Tanuku.
21. It is also his case that in the light of the facts and circumstances the principal question to be decided is that who is the Secretary-cum-Correspondent as on the date of filing of these O.Ps. Further it is averred that the petitioner never raised any dispute before any authorities even after the receipt of information from the Registrar of Societies, Bhimavaram. Further it is stated that the respondent entered into agreements with different people for accommodation to the college, play ground of the college, and deposited Rs. 6.00 lakhs with Higher Educational Department, Hyderabad, as a caution deposit for running the college. The university authorities granted permission for the decree college and several other further facts also had been narrated.
22. The learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, recorded the following point for consideration at para 16.
Who is the Secretary-cum-Correspondent as on the date of filing of both the petitions and who has to be acted as Secretary-cum-Correspondent in respect of Sri Krishna Veni Educational Society, Tanuku, and thereby the respective petitions filed by them in the above interlocutory applications are maintainable or not is to be seen in this petition?
23. The learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru referred to the documents relied upon by the parties, discussed the facts commencing from paras 17 to 63 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the relief prayed for in favour of the respondent to be granted and the relief prayed for by the petitioner to be negatived.
24. At the outset, it is made clear that the relief prayed for by the respondent even in the light of the documents relied upon by the parties as prayed for cannot be granted and at the best there can be temporary injunction in favour of such party and against the revision petitioner from interfering with the activities of the respondent as Secretary-cum-Correspondent of Sri Krishna Veni Educational Society and the colleges established by the society.
25. There is no doubt some controversy whether the petitioner is the president of the society or the Secretary of the society. No doubt, elaborate submissions had been made in relation to Ex.B-17 and Ex.B-18 and the contents thereof. Exs.A-1 to A-14 would clearly go to show that as on the date of filing of these O.Ps. the respondent herein had been continued to be the Secretary-cum-Correspondent and the correspondence in this regard would clearly go to show that the stand taken by the respondent had been prima facie established. Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 had been relied upon. Apart from Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2, Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5 also had been relied upon. Ex.A-3 proceedings of A.P. State Council of Higher Education, Ex.A-6 proceedings of Andhra University regarding the decree college, Ex.A-7 also had been discussed. Ex.A-8 and Ex.A-10 also had been taken into consideration. Ex.A-9 also had been referred to. Ex.A-11 circular and resolution passed by the respondent in the capacity of Secretary-cum-Correspondent on behalf of the society in question, Ex.A-12 memorandum of District Registrar, Ex.A-13 list of executive members of the committee from 1998 to 2003, Ex.A-14 the complaint given by the respondent for the theft in their office dated 2.7.2008 also had been relied upon.
26. Whatever may be the prior decision from the voluminous documentary evidence relied upon by the respondent, it is crystal clear that as on the date of filing of the O.Ps. the respondent had been acting as Secretary of the society in question. No doubt, in the light of Exs.B-1 to B-18 several submissions were made in elaboration and heavy reliance was placed in relation to Ex.B-1, Ex.B-17 and Ex.B-18. It may be that some representation might have been made and several allegations might have been made in this regard.
27. In
The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy-until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are:
(1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie cast that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction.
(2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury, which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.
(3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.
Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the Court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive or complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as pre-requisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion.
28. Further reliance was placed on the decision in
We would also like to observe that, in a matter touching either the discipline or the administration of the internal affairs of a University, Courts should be most reluctant to interfere. They should refuse to grant an injunction unless a fairly good prima facie case is made out for interference with the internal affairs of educational institutions.
29. In
That apart, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of about Rs. 70 Lakhs. It is represented that the defendant also had earlier filed another suit in Bombay High Court for recovery of about Rs. 48 Lakhs towards the expenses incurred by it due to the delayed retirement of documents and also demurrage charges for about three months. A specific plea is taken to the said effect by the defendant in its counter-affidavit stating that the present suit filed is a counter-blast to the one filed by the defendant in Bombay Court. When such is the situation, the Court below should have examined in detail with great care as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. On the other hand, the learned Judge observed in his order that prima facie case does not mean that the Court should examine the merits of the case closely and come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has a case in which he is likely to succeed, as that would be prejudicing the case on its merits. We are afraid, this view taken by the learned Judge is absolutely wrong. In a given case, it is the bounden duty of the Court to examine in detail with reference to the specific material on record to find out whether prima facie case is made out or not; in whose favour does the balance of convenience lie; and whether the petitioner suffers any irreparable loss if injunction is refused. In the present case, as many as twenty six documents for the petitioner and the same number of documents for the respondents were exhibited before the trial Court. But, the Court below without examining the matter in detail, granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff merely saying that prima facie case is made out apart from stating that the two other requirements are also fulfilled. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with Law. However, we direct that this case be transferred to the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad. The said Court will dispose of the application afresh on its own merits and in the light of the observations made above and after hearing both the parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The counsel will be cooperative with the Court in disposal of the matter within the time stipulated.
30. In
A perusal of the various provisions contained in the 1993 Agreement shows that by this agreement Coca Cola has agreed to grant a licence to GBC for the use of the trade marks in respect of beverages mentioned in Annexure II to the agreement which were to be acquired shortly by Coca Cola. A number of provisions in the agreement relate to the use of the said trade marks by GBC so as to ensure that such user of the trade marks by GBC so as to ensure that such user of the trade marks by GBC is strictly in accordance with the common law governing user of trade marks. The 1993 Agreement was, therefore, an agreement for grant of licence under common law for user by GBC of the trade marks which were to be acquired by Coca Cola. The 1993 Agreement also contains various provisions governing preparation, bottling and sale of the beverages covered by the said trade marks. In that sense the 1993 Agreement can be regarded as an agreement for grant of a franchise by Coca Cola, as franchiser, to GBC, as franchisee, whereunder GBC has been permitted to manufacture, bottle and sell the beverages covered by the trade marks referred to and mentioned in the agreement in the area covered by the agreement subject to the conditions laid down in the agreement.
31. In
All this notwithstanding, I am not in a position to say, in exercise of revisional power u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the lower Courts have committed any illegality or error of jurisdiction in granting the injunction. The approach that a person in permissive possession has to be protected against forcible dispossession cannot be faulted. At the same time, the respondent should not be allowed to remain in the possession free of charge; otherwise, it would amount to placing a premium on the unreasonable and litigious conduct of the respondent-plaintiff. While protection can be given to the plaintiff to maintain his possession till the disposal of the suit, it is only proper that a condition should be imposed that he should pay reasonable compensation for unauthorized use and occupation of the property the owner of which is a public religious institution. The grant of preventive relief by way of injunction is essentially equitable in nature and it should not result in inequity to either party. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of a case, the Court which is expected to prevent forcible dispossession is also duty bound to see that the plaintiff does not derive an unjust advantage from his recalcitrant attitude. He has no right to insist that the Court should not only protect his possession but also grant him immunity from pecuniary liability for the actual advantage enjoyed by him.
32. Reliance also was placed on the decision in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2008 (6) SCJ 705 : 2008 (5) Supreme 287 wherein it was observed at paras 45 and 46 as hereunder.
Yet in another case in
in order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice.
In the case on hand, the appellant has not come forward with all the facts. He has chosen to state facts in the manner suited to him by giving an impression to the Writ Court that an instrumentality of State (SAIL) has not followed doctrine of natural justice and fundamental principles of fair procedure. This is not proper. Hence, on that ground alone, the appellant cannot claim equitable relief. But we have also considered the merits of the case and even on merits, we are convinced that no case has been made out by him to interfere with the action of SAIL, or the order passed by the High court.
There cannot be any controversy relating to the propositions laid down in the decisions specified supra.
33. Whether the signatures had been forged or not, this being a question of fact, at this stage it may not be just and proper to express any opinion. Exs.B-2 to B-16 also had been relied upon and certain of the entries and certain of the portions had been specifically pointed to show that the petitioner had been acting as Secretary. It may be so that at a particular point of time that might have been the situation and whether it is to be taken as a mistake or otherwise, this aspect also cannot be gone into at this stage. But however, while admitting the civil revision petitions also status quo had been granted. Status quo means the existing things as on the date of granting status quo to be continued. If Exs.A-1 to A-14 to be taken into consideration, but for the submissions made relating to the forgery and other aspects, the fact that at the relevant point of time the respondent had been the Secretary of the society definitely can be said to have been prima facie established.
34. When that being so, it would be just and proper in the interest of the society and the educational institutions, to continue such state of things till the disposal of the O.Ps. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner as the President of the society is entitled to act as President of the society under any of the Rules or bye-laws of the society, the revision petitioner-president of such society is at liberty in doing so. The temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondent in I.A. No. 2540 of 2008 in O.P. No. 692 of 2008 aforesaid would not come in the way of the revision petitioner acting as president in the event of the Rules or bye-laws of the society authorizing him or permitting him to act in a particular way as president not beyond thereto.
35. Thus, it is made clear that the temporary injunction granted in favour of respondent in I.A. No. 2540 of 2008 in O.P. No. 692 of 2008 is accordingly modified to the extent of restraining the revision petitioner from interfering with the activities of the respondent as the Secretary of the society in question. Except this modification, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the common order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever.
36. Point No. 3:
In the light of the views expressed supra, the civil revision petitions are hereby dismissed subject to the modification made in the order of temporary injunction granted in I.A. No. 2540 of 2008 in O.P. No. 692 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. No costs. In the light of the urgency pleaded by the parties, let the learned Judge make an endeavour to dispose of the O.Ps. at an early date.
