THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2528 OF 2010 DATED:13-12- 2010. Between 1.Smt. S.Sunitha and others … Petitioners And 1.M/s Sigma Aviation Academy, rep. by its proprietor J.V.Mohan and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2528 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 02-02-2010, in CMA No.127 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in confirming the order of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 03-08-2009, in I.A.No.462 of 2009 in O.S.No.2622 of 2009. 2. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in this revision. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed the above application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and two others from interfering in the smooth functioning of the plaintiff academy or its day-to-day affairs, which is being run in the schedule premises as well as at the training center in any manner whatsoever presenting the plaintiff academy before respondents 10 to 12 therein or making any correspondence before them or before any other authority on behalf of the plaintiff academy. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the 1st respondent academy was established by J.V.Mohan, sole proprietor and founder of the academy. He is the Engineer by profession and one of the founder Director of the Flytech Aviation academy, which is incorporated in the year 1994 and is engaged kin imparting flying raining for commercial pilot licence and Aircraft Maintenance Engineering Institute and having gained good experience in Aviation Academy and in view of his merit in the field he started an institute of Aircraft Maintenance Engineering in the name and style of Sigma Aviation Academy. The training place of the plaintiff academy is situated at the premises bearing plot No. 1 to 16 in Sy.No.141/4, situated at Nadergul village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In pursuance of the application of the plaintiff, D10 granted approval to the plaintiff academy and said approval was also confirmed by D12 and accordingly issued the certificate of approval in the category G, dated 02-08-2006. The scope of the approval is to impart Ab initio training in the field of Aircraft Maintenance Engineering to cover Light Airtrain Piston Engine and Radio Navigation. Since the date of inception, he has been running the academy peacefully and successfully. 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of J.V.Mohan and due to misunderstandings their relationship became strained and when her self and her brother and sister started to interfere with the academy, settlement took place between plaintiff and his wife and the terms were reduced into writing in the affidavit of 1st petitioner herein stating that she had decided to live separately from her husband and she does not want to keep any properties in her name. Sigma Aviation Academy is established by her husband and the entire investments borne out from his funds and she also deposed that she had taken all her gold, jewellary, fixed deposits, bank balances, lockers cash etc., given to her by her husband after marriage and she has no other personal assets belongings in the custody of her husband to be returned. Even after the settlement, she started interference to the academy like misleading the general public in order to meet out their illegal gains by forging the signatures of the 1st respondent herein and making attempts to correspondence with the concerned authorities. She addressed a letter to D12 dated 14-11-2006 by forging the signature of her husband seeking approval of the appointment of Ajay Kumar Nayak as Chief Instructor in the place of Subbaiyer Natarajan and Balakrishna as Deputy Chief Instructor. In order to defeat the rights of the 1st respondent herein, she is hand in glove with other petitioners and making admissions of the students. 1st respondent having no other go finally addressed a letter dated 05-09-2008 under the Right to Information Act to D10 to furnish the entire information relating to academy and its correspondence with his wife and accordingly, the entire material papers sought by him was furnished . After receipt of the above information, he initiated action and at this juncture forged letter dated 14-11-2006, addressed to D10 was brought into his notice. At the outset the said letter is neither signed by him nor bears his signature and it is forged one. Hence, the petition. 4. The petitioners herein filed counter denying the averments made in the petition admitting the relationship between 1st petitioner herein and 1st respondent. J.V. Mohan was never the owner of academy and he was working as Accountable Manager. The suit is not maintainable as J.V.Mohan is not the proprietor of the academy and he is nothing to do with the academy. The academy has entered into memorandum of understanding with M/s Flytech Aviation Academy for carrying Aircraft Maintenance Engineering and other allied service. The address of the academy sown in the cause title is not in existence and correct address f the academy is 1-8-303/33 3 and 4 floors, Nagam Towers, NRT Circle, S.P. Road, Secunderabad and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 1st petitioner herein filed O.S.54 of 2007 to 63 of 2007 on the file of I Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and O.S.Nos. 357 of 2007 to 363 of 2007 on the file of Addl. Judge and the said suits were decreed for specific performance of agreement of sale and in compliance of the orders of the trial Court, the developers executed registered sale deeds in her favour and handed over vacant possession to her. J.V. Mohan without having any respect for the orders of Court, executed General Power of Attorneys for the same properties in favour of some also and also filed O.S.10 of 2008 and 11 of 2008 and the same are pending. Status quo order was passed with regard to possession and alienation of the properties and J.V. Mohan was a Director of M/s Flytech Aviation Ltd., and on the ground of misappropriation, a complaint was registered in FIR No.268 of 2008 on the file of P.S.Ramgopalpet and he was arrested and later released on bail for fabrication of documents in the name and seal of High Court. J.V.Mohan filed O.S.553 of 1008 on the file of I Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy seeking declaration of title in respect of the land belonging to 1st petitioner herein. A perusal of the order, dated 31-07-2006 shows that the approval was granted in response to the application of Sigma Aviation Academy and not in response to the alleged letter of J.V.Mohan. 1st petitioner herein took the custody of the company as a lawful owner. There has never been a single instance of taking admissions directly by Sigma Aviation Academy. M/s Flytech Aviation Ltd., has a licence. In view of MOU as infrastructure, manpower ec., which are mandatory for the functioning of the Institute are provided by M/s Flytech Aviation Ltd., all admissions for Sigma Aviation Academy are taken by M/s Flytech Aviation Ltd., 1st respondent herein has already taken 80 admissions and out of the above, 60 admissions are confirmed for June, 2009 batch and 20 are confirmed for January 2010 batch and the said fact itself shows the false contentions of J.V.Mohan. They received a letter, dated 16-12-2008 from D10 calling upon them to submit a detailed reply and accordingly, the 1st petitioner relied on 17-12-2008 bringing out the real facts and after that no action was taken. The building in which the college and class are run for academy is constructed by M/s Flytech Aviation Ltd., and the land is leased by 1st petitioner herein to M/s Flytech Aviation Ltd. 5. The 2nd respondent herein filed separate counter stating that he was the Chief Instructor of Sigma Aviation Academy, An Institute of Aircraft Maintenance Engineering approved by Director General of Civil Aviation, dated 02-08-2006. The academy was under the administration and management of J.V.Mohan, who is the sole proprietor of academy. 1st petitioner herein is no way concerned whatsoever with regard to the affairs of the academy and she has been disturbing the day-to-day affairs or the academy in order to take vengeance against her husband. As per rules any one can be appointed as a Accountable Manager and as the matter of fact petitioners herein also no way concerned with the academy. 1st petitioner herein is not having any technical knowledge in the field of Aircraft Aviation. 6. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of either side. Exs.P1 to P56 were marked on behalf of the 1st respondent herein and Exs.R1 to R152 were marked on behalf of the petitioners herein. 7. The trial Court after considering the material available on record, granted temporary injunction and the said order of injunction was confirmed in the appeal. Challenging the same, this revision is preferred. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein contended that the 1st petitioner herein filed a petition starting training institution whereunder J.V.Mohan was shown as Accountable Manager and Form No.182 was required for starting training institution. In pursuance of the application made by 1st petitioner herein, initial approval was granted by the competent authority and thereafter, she appointed one C.S.Rao as Chief Instructor by the Accountable Manager and thereafter, J.V.Mohan was replaced in the place of Jaffer Mohiuddin, Accountable Manager from 08-08-2007. It is further contended that there is no material in between 08-08-2007 to 10-06-2008 to show that the petitioner was acting as Accountable Manager and she was making correspondence with the concerned Aviation officials at Hyderabad and New Delhi. Both the counsel placed reliance on Ex.B9-affidavit which is not in accordance with law and if really, J.V. Mohan established this institution, certainly he would have telephoned and he does not have a telephone connection till July, 2008 and the petition is filed to disrupt the activities of the 1st petitioner and others, that there is evidence on record, which would go to show that the 1st petitioner purchased Aircraft which is imperative for imparting training for giving demonstration to the students and if really, J.V. Mohan is the proprietor of 1st respondent academy, he would be in a position to know the activities of the academy and the students who joined the academy. Therefore, balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein contended that it is the J.V. Mohan, proprietor of the academy filed the application to run the academy and paid necessary money by way of demand draft and postal orders to start the institution as per the Aviation Regulations, that as it is a small institution, the Accountable Manager is the person who has to deal with the affairs of academy, that in pursuance of his application only, the concerned authority has given approval to start the institution, that owning Aircraft is not a condition precedent for giving the training, that the petitioners have not filed a single document to show that they have authority to run the institution and from the correspondence made between the 1st respondent and the Civil Aviation authority, it is clear that 1st respondent alone is running institution, that both Courts gave findings after proper appreciation of evidence on record and rightly granted injunction and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. The grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is covered by three principles viz., 1) if the plaintiff has made out a Prima facie case 2) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and 3) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. While exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as if in an appeal and re- appreciate the evidence. The findings of both Courts below are perverse, or findings are not based upon any evidence or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or admissible evidence was over looked or totally miscarriage of justice has been caused to the parties by virtue of impugned order, are some of the circumstances under which the Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of both Courts below. 11. The dispute is with regard to prima facie ownership of Sigma Aviation Academy. According to J.V. Mohan, he is the founder of that institution by making necessary application before the concerned officials of the Aviation Department for grant of approval for running of the institution. Therefore, J.V. Mohan contends that he is the sole proprietor of that academy having applied for same after paying necessary fee and in view of the fact that he is the sole proprietor of that academy, he is entitled to run the academy. 12. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the 1st petitioner herein that she applied for licence to start the academy as Executive Director, that J.V. Mohan is the Accountable Manager for the academy, that in pursuance of her application, necessary approval was given by the competent authority. 13. Learned counsel for the 1st petitioner relied upon documents to substantiate his contentions that 1st petitioner is the person who started this academy as Executive Director and she alone is competent to run the academy. The documents have been referred to by the counsel for the petitioners herein would go to show that the 1st petitioner is the Executive Director of the academy and in pursuance of her application with regard to relevant forms, approval has been given. 14. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein also placed reliance on the documents, which would go to show that in pursuance of the application by J.V. Mohan necessary approval has been given by the competent authority. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that documents filed by the 1st petitioner to support her contention are fabricated or forged or created, that aspect of the case cannot be decided here. It is not the stage to test whether the documents filed are true and correct. Therefore, from the documents filed by both parties, it is difficult to decide prima facie at this stage as to who started this Sigma Aviation Academy. Hence, that aspect of the case has left open to be decided by the trial Court after adducing necessary evidence by both parties in the suit. 15. Coming to the balance of convenience, the grievance of the 1st respondent is that the petitioners herein are interfering with his smooth functioning of the academy or its day-to-day affairs. It is not in dispute before this Court that J.V. Mohan representing Sigma Aviation Academy filed suit O.S. 553 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy against the 1st petitioner herein seeking the relief inter alia directing the defendant therein not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property in that suit is land and building to an extent of 4852.85 sq. yards covered by plot Nos. 1 to 16 open land in Survey No.141/4, situated at Nadargal village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District bounded by North: Neighbours land, South: Swamy Narayana Nagar, East: Forest land and West: Nagarjuna Sagar Road. Along with the suit, J.V. Mohan filed an injunction petition with a prayer to restrain the defendants from interfering with the petition schedule property. Injunction was not granted and the suit is pending for adjudication. The present suit was filed by Sigma Aviation Academy, represented by the proprietor J.V. Mohan against respondents 1 to 8 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the smooth functioning of plaintiff academy or its day-to-day affairs, which is being run in the suit schedule property i.e., Sigma Aviation Academy, situated at suite 204, level 2, Dhruvatara Apartments, Medinova building, Somajiguda, Hyderabad admeasuring approximately 1400 sq. ft and bounded by North: Neighbours flat, South: Open to sky, East: Open to sky and West: Corridor/passage. The relief sought for against D1 to D9 insofar as their interference in the suit schedule property i.e, apartment as annexed to the schedule. The relief granted by the trial Court in its application in I.A. No.462 of 2009 in O.S.No.2622 of 2009, dated 03-08-2009 is in respect of schedule premises. The 1st respondent claimed injunction not only for the petition schedule property, but also for training center and that relief was also granted by the trial Court. Insofar as relief of injunction in respect of training center, the same has not been granted by the I Additional District Judge in the suit O.S.553 of 2008. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have granted injunction against the respondents 1 to 5 from interfering with the training center, which is covered by the subject matter in the suit in O.S.553 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. Without adverting to the merits and demerits of the case, the order of the trial Court in granting injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 5 from interfering with the smooth functioning of the office academy located at Dhruvatara Apartments is only be granted. Both the Courts below gave concurrent findings on this aspect. The findings cannot be shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Insofar as granting of junction against respondents 1 to 5 at the training center at Nadargul village is not sustainable in view of the fact that injunction was not granted by I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, in O.S.553 of 2008. The dispute with regard to training centre of plaintiff has to be adjudicated in that suit. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed confirming the injunction granted against respondents 1 to 5 in the trial Court in respect of office premises suite No.204, Level 2, admeasuring 1400 sq. feet, Dhruvatara apartments, Somajiguda. Hyderabad. Insofar as granting of injunction against respondents 1 to 5 in the trial Court not to interfere with day-to-day affairs of the academy at the training centre at Nadargul is set aside. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:13-12- 2010 Hsd