IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP Nos.301 & 1368 of 2011 CRP No.301 of 2011: Between: Velagala Suryanarayana (died) & another … Petitioners And: Gopal Finance Corporation, Marteru … Respondent CRP No.1368 of 2011: Between: Gopal Finance Corporation, Marteru … Petitioner And: Velagala Suryanarayana … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.301 & 1368 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Both revision petitions are directed against the order dated 30.04.2010 in IA No.1484 of 2009 in CMA No.8 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners in CRP No.301 of 2011 under Section 153 CPC seeking review of the order in IA No.455 of 2009, was dismissed. The respondent in CRP No.301 of 2011 is the petitioner in CRP No.1368 of 2011, who also filed the revision against the same order. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The Respondent-Finance Corporation in CRP No.301 of 2011, who is the petitioner in CRP No.1368 of 2011 filed suit OS No.106 of 2008 against the defendants (petitioners in CRP No.301 of 2011) for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also filed IA No.377 of 2008 in OS No.106 of 2008 for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the schedule property, which is a lorry bearing No.AP 37 Y 0944. The defendants filed counter, opposing the said application. The trial Court by order dated 21.08.2008 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed CMA No.8 of 2008. By order dated 24.12.2008, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, modified the order passed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the first defendant filed IA No.1484 of 2009 seeking review of the order under section 153 CPC on the ground that there is apparent contradiction in the orders passed. The said application was dismissed, observing that the defendant failed to establish that there was any contradiction in the orders passed. Assailing the same, the defendants filed CRP No.301 of 2011. The plaintiff also filed CRP No.1368 of 2011. 4. The trial Court in the impugned order dated 21.08.2008 in IA No.377 of 2008 held that the ex-parte injunction granted on 07.03.2008 is liable to be vacated and the plaintiff was directed to hand over the vehicle to the first respondent (first defendant) on proper acknowledgment. The trial Court further observed that in view of the pendency of the criminal cases against first defendant for the offences of forgery and fabrication of documents, first defendant was directed to give an undertaking that he will not alienate the said vehicle, till disposal of the above cases. The appellate Court, while disposing of the CMA, held as follows: “Point No.6: In view of the answers to points 1 to 5, this point No.6 is answered by holding that this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed partly, order of the trial Court directing the petitioner to hand over the vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 37 Y 0944 forthwith to R.1 on proper acknowledgment. Accordingly points are answered in favour of R1/D1 and against the petitioner/plaintiff. In view of pending criminal cases against the respondent No.1/D1 for the offence of forgery and fabrication of documents, the respondent No.1/D1 is directed to give an undertaking before this Court that he will not alienate the said vehicle till the disposal of such criminal cases is set aside and IA No.1279 of 2008 is allowed and suspend the order granted by the trial Court in IA No.377 of 08 till the date of today by modifying the orders passed in IA No.1279/08 and IA No.1332/08 is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. For rest of all the other reliefs the CMA is dismissed.” 7. Learned counsel for both sides would submit that the above order does not convey any proper meaning and therefore, the application for review was filed. From the above extracted operative portion of the order, it is not clear as to what exactly the appellate Court intended and to what extent the purported modification of the order passed by the trial Court was contemplated. The impugned order suffers from the vice of ambiguity and certainly needs clarification by making it clear as to what exactly the appellate Court intended to convey by way of its decision. It is a matter where both sides are aggrieved over the lack of clarity in the impugned order passed in CMA No.8 of 2008. The learned Senior Civil Judge, without making any effort to clarify the order passed in CMA No.8 of 2008, summarily dismissed the application IA No.1484 of 2009 observing that the petitioner failed to establish that there was a contradiction in the order. 8. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in IA No.1484 of 2009 duly clarifying the intention of the Court in passing the common order in CMA No.8 of 2008, IA No.1279 of 2008 and IA No.1332 of 2008 on 24.12.2008, ensuring that the order does not suffer from any inherent contradiction, after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Senior Civil Judge is further directed to dispose of the IA No.1484 of 2009, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 9. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 16.11.2011 Note: Issue CC in one week (B0) bss