1. The petitioner herein is the sixth defendant in O.S.No. 68 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. It is aggrieved by the order dated 27-10-2003 in I.A.No. 275 of 2003 in O.S.No. 68 of 2002 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, whereby and whereunder the application made by the petitioner herein under Order XXXIX Rule 3-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as amended by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, for compensation, was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to produce any documentary evidence in proof of the damages suffered by it.
2. The petitioner herein is the Gram Panchayat. The first respondent (hereinafter called, the plaintiff) was granted the quarry lease for sand in Reach No. 17 (Srikakulam Reach), which was within the territorial limits of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. The lease was for a period of two years. The plaintiff filed O.S.No. 68 of 2002 alleging that after expiry of lease on 1-10-2002 the lease was extended for another period of two years and that defendants 1 to 5 (respondents 2 to 6 herein) are interfering with the quarrying operations. The trial Court granted ad interim injunction in an application, being I.A.No. 445 of 2002, filed under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 of cpc. It appears, subsequently, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat got impleaded as sixth defendant alleging that it is entitled to a proportionate share in the lease amount paid by the plaintiff and as the plaintiff is quarrying illegally even after expiry of lease period, it is a necessary party to the suit. Be that as it is, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 5525 of 2003 presumably for a similar relief and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, to dispose of the suit within three weeks. At that stage, the plaintiff sought leave of the trial Court and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 13-6-2003. The petitioner then filed I.A.No. 275 of -2003 claiming compensation under Order XXXIX Rule 3-B of CPC for a period of 256 days during which the plaintiff allegedly carried on quarrying operations illegally beyond the period of contract. The application was opposed by the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner-Gram Panchyat is not a party to the contract and that whatever the amount that is received by the other defendants will be distributed among the local bodies.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that even though the petitioner-Gram Panchayat is not a party to the contract, it is entitled to a share in the lease amount paid by the plaintiff during the contract period and in case the plaintiff's suit is decreed legalizing the quarry operations even after expiry of lease, the plaintiff is liable to pay the lease amount proportionately in which the petitioner has a share. As the local bodies were denied the share by reason of the injunction order granted by the trial Court the petitioner has to be compensated for the loss.
4. Rules 3-A and 3-B of Order XXXIX were inserted in CPC by reason of A.P. Amendment Act. These Rules read as under:
3-A. In any case where a temporary injunction is granted, the Court may, at the time of the order, or at any time during the pendency of the injunction, call upon the applicant to furnish security for the amount of damages that the Court may determine as payable by the party obtaining the injunction to the other party as compensation for any injury or loss that may be sustained by the latter by reason of the injunction.
3-B. The Court shall, on application made after the disposal of the suit, determine the amount payable under Rule 3-A and make an order awarding it to the applicant.
5. A brief analysis of the above provisions would show that the Civil Court has to determine the amount of damages and call upon the applicant (seeking injunction) to furnish security for the said amount. That amount is intended to compensate any injury or loss that may be sustained by the other party. That is the purport of Rule 3-A of Order XXXIX of CPC. Rule 3-B of Order XXXIX of CPC is to the effect that after the disposal of the suit, the Court may on an application determine the amount payable under Rule 3-A of Order XXXIX of CPC and make an order to that effect. Therefore, unless and until an order is passed by the civil Court at the time of passing an order of temporary injunction and the plaintiff/ applicant deposits the money as security for the amount of damages, the question of determining and awarding the amount under Rule 3-B of Order XXXIX of CPC does not arise. This would necessarily lead to the conclusion that a person who is not originally impleaded as defendant and a person even if impleaded as defendant who does not insist upon the plaintiff furnishing security for the amount of damages is not entitled to seek the remedy under Rule 3-B of Order XXXIX of CPC. Reading Rules 3-A and 3-B of Order XXXIX of CPC together keeping in view the legislative choice of the terminology, this Court holds that when a defendant fails to seek an order from the Court at the time of grant of injunction, he cannot seek an order awarding compensation under Rule 3-B of Order XXXIX of CPC subsequently.
6. There is no denial in this case that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat got impleaded subsequently in the suit. The contract was given to the plaintiff not by the Gram Panchayat but by the second defendant, namely the Chairman, District Sand Auction Committee. And if under the relevant statutory Rules the petitioner-Gram Panchayat is entitled for proportionate share in the lease amount, it can certainly approach the District Collector for such relief by taking appropriate recourse. The petitioner cannot certainly maintain an application under Order XXXIX Rule 3-B of CPC.
7. The impugned order does not surfer from any error, and therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.