THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3068 of 2011, 3139 of 2011 & 3140 of 2011 Dated 22-9-2011 C.R.P.No.3068 of 2011: Between: K.R.Sudhakar and another. ..Petitioner. And: Gangadharan Nair. … Respondent. C.R.P.No.3139 of 2011: Between: M/s. P.V.S.Industries, Hospet, represented by its Partner P.G.Ravindranath. ..Petitioner. And: Kurmapu Gopalakrishna and another. … Respondents. C.R.P.No.3140 of 2011: Between: K.R.Sudhakar and another. ..Petitioners. And: K. Gopalakrishna. … Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3068 of 2011, 3139 of 2011 & 3140 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.3068 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the common order dated 26.7.2011 passed in I.A.No.190 of 2010 in O.S.No.7 of 2004 by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-Additional District Court, Srikakulam. C.R.P.No.3139 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the common order dated 26.7.2011 passed in I.A.No.20 of 2011 in O.S.No.7 of 2004 by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-Additional District Court, Srikakulam. C.R.P.No.3140 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.2011 passed in I.A.No.89 of 2011 in O.S.No.7 of 2004 by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-Additional District Court, Srikakulam. Petitioners in these three C.R.P.s. are defendants and respondents in these three C.R.Ps. are plaintiffs before the Court below. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit before the Court below for the sake of convenience. Since the parties and the issue involved in these three C.R.Ps. are one and the same, they are disposed of by way of a common order. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the 1st defendant only and along with the said suit I.A.No.1228 of 2004 for temporary injunction and coming to know about the same, the 2nd defendant filed I.A.No.1553 of 2004 to implead him as a party. Thereupon the 2nd defendant filed I.A.No.4287 of 2004 for interim custody of the proclainier, which is the suit schedule property and on 9.2.2005 the said proclainer is ordered to be given as interim custody to the 2nd defendant on condition of giving bank guarantee for Rs.18,60,000/- on or before 14.2.2005. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.190 of 2010 to direct the 2nd respondent to hand over possession of the proclainer to him. Then second defendant filed I.A.No.20 of 2011 to permit him to furnish a fresh bank guarantee forRs.18,60,000/- as per the orders in I.A.No.4287 of 2004 referred to above. Subsequently, a Petition in I.A.No.89 of 2011 is filed by the plaintiff to appoint an advocate Commissioner to handover physical possession of the suit schedule proclainer to him from the possession of the 2nd defendant. The Court below allowed the petitions I.A.No.190 of 2010 and 89 of 2011 and dismissed the petition I.A.No.20 of 2011. Aggrieved by which, the present three Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the defendants. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the 2nd defendant can be given an opportunity for furnishing a fresh bank guarantee.? The 2nd defendant claiming to be the owner of the proclainer got himself impleaded as 2nd defendant to the original suit in O.S.No.7 of 2004 and filed I.A.No.4287 of 2004 for interim custody of proclainer. The interim custody of the proclainer was ordered to him on 9.2.2005 on condition of giving bank guarantee for Rs.18,60,000/-on or before 14.2.2005. Then the 2nd defendant furnished bank guarantee and the proclainer was handed over to him through an advocate commissioner. However, Branch Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Hospet has sent a letter to return the original bank guarantee dated 11-02-2005 on the ground that the guarantee was expired by 11.2.2006 itself. Admittedly, the 2nd defendant did not renew or offer fresh bank guarantee. Then, he sought time for furnishing fresh bank guarantee. Then the plaintiff filed petition in I.A.No.89 of 2011 to appoint an advocate commissioner to handover physical possession of the suit schedule proclainer to him from the possession of 2nd defendant. Then the lower Court having observed that in spite of giving opportunity, the 2nd defendant failed to furnish the bank guarantee, dismissed the I.A.No.20 of 2011 filed by the 2nd defendant and allowed petitions in I.A.No.190 of 2010 and 89 of 2011. It is not in dispute that considering the rival contentions, the lower court already passed orders on previous occasion permitting the 2nd defendant to furnish bank guarantee and accordingly, the 2nd defendant has furnished bank guarantee. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the said orders, proclainer has been handed over to him. It appears that he did not observe that the Bank gaurantee was only for one year period and did not take fresh bank guarantee. It appears that it may not be just and reasonable to deprive the right of the2nd defendant to have the custody of proclainer pending disposal of the suit. In the above circumstances, the petitioner/2nd defendant is permitted to furnish the fresh bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.18,60,000/- within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the orders passed in I.A.No.190 of 2010 and 89 of 2011 will be in force. Accordingly, these C.R.Ps. are allowed and consequently, the impugned order is set aside. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 22-09-2011 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. BO. Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3068 of 2011, 3139 of 2011 & 3140 of 2011 Dated 22-9-2011