The High Court · 2025

151_.CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in of the petition, the High Court may O" pf"u."J i" 18.t2o24 passed in tA N;. 248 ot 2o2i i" cilA N;. d; ble Principal District and Sessions JuJos ^Hon Gadwal pending disposal of the CRp. Counsel for the petitione(s):SRl. B.Venkateshwar Reddy Counsel for the ResponAentft . g.ruarasimhulu The Court made the following: ORDER : i i l i- *r.,,, THE HON'BI,I} SRI JUSTICE NARSIIVG RAO NAND]IIiONDA cn[L R EVISI ON PETITION tYo..1() 0F. 2025 ORD ER: This O: r il Revision petition is f.iled I 5 petitioners /r LpI rc,llan ts/ respondents aggneved by the order, dated 29.08 2(,2,,4 O.M.A.Nr 05 of 2024 pass:d b r' the learned principal District an,J g,:s"iorr" Judge, Jogrlarn ba Gadwa_I. I.A.No.248 of 2024 in 1n

2. Hr:ard Mr. B. Venkateshu,ar Reddy, learnr:d ctrnsel for the petiiicnerrs and Mr.K.B.Narasimhulu, Iezrrned c.l:nsel for the respon de r t Perused the record.

3. I'h,: t rief facts of the case are that the re.spo ndent herein filed a srlt being O.S.No.63 of 2022 on the ;ile of learned Jun. or rl irzil g16*", Alampur, against the pr:titi:trers herein for pernral<:nt injunction. In the said suir, I.,\.No.4g9 of 2022 was tll()cl sr:eking ad_ tnteiminjunction restrarninrl the petitioners hereri r from interfering with the pea:x:ful possession alci r: r.ioyment of the respondent over he suit schedule proF et t_)' The learned Junior Civil Judge, A.:amrtrrr, having heard l,:au rred counsel on both sides ald ha.,,i ng ,.6,a;ffi*i;ix*l * d lilL,:., , =rlt*'', .;*ix1." ,.,-j*l -i NNR,I ctp 40_20)5 perused entire material on record, granted temporary lnJIlnction.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred C.M.A.No.OS of 2024 in which they filed I.A.No.248 of 2024 in C.M.A.No.O5 of 2024 under Order XLI Rule 5 (1) read with Section 151 of C.p.C seeking stay of order and decree, dated 20.O9.2023 in I.A.No.489 of 2022 in O.S.No.63 of 2022, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur. 5. The learned principal District Judge, Jogr:Iamba Gadwal, after hearing both parties and taking .into consideration the counter-a_flidavit, was pleased to dismiss the said application on 29.Og.2O24 and the operative portion of the said order is extracted as under: 'The order passed in I.A.No.4g9 of 2022 is executable in nature arrd in the event of petitioners violate the temporary injunction granted under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.p.C. the petitioners seek punishment for disobedience of the said order,

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court, without considering the documents filed by the petitioners, has erroneously dismissed the application frled by them. He further submits that the petitioners, father I-\*1\i ..t I I ! - NNR,J t:rp 40 2025 purchase,l :hr subject land by virtue of registereC S.ile Deed bearing coournent No.693 of ),929, dated I 1.07.1!r?.9 and after his derrL;se, the petitioners are in peaceful por;siession and enjoy:rrr:n.t of the same. Learned counsel lurther srrbmits that the tr.ial (tc,urt failed to consider the original Agr,:r:ment, dated 25.04 l !,9i6, aleged to have been executed am,:;rg the family mereher:; by partitioning the properties. 7 . It is r:ontended that in fact, petitioner N,r..2 is an illiterate arrd hr. used to keep his left hand thurnb im.p.:t:ssion for his sigrtature. But, the alleged Agreemr:nt, dated 25.O4.1996 lonrains the slgnature of petitioner- No2 in English, .,vhic .r does not belong to him respondent,/plai n tiff did not file the alleged Agreement, <lated 25.04.1996 FL. also further submits that the L-ia-l Oourt failed to corrsrder the criminal case lodged by petiti:ne,. No.2 before pS U nrl a gelli against the respondenr/pl lint if t in respect of a1l,:gcct fabricated and forged Agreeme;-rt, dated The

25.O4.1996.

8. H e alr;o further submits that as a count.er. tlast, the respondr:n _ akrng with other brothers filed suitr; aEainst the petitioners *'ithout any cause of action and the s;amrl are /\ T NNR,J ctP_4O-2025 rR=lrl \I \ pending before the learned Junior Civil Judge, A1ampur. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent herein has obtained the order of injunction without there being any right and title over subject property and the learned trial Court without considering the said aspects passed impugned order dismissing the application.

9. The respondent filed counter-affrdavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of petition artd submits that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwa-l after considering the entire material on record, passed the impugned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

10. The matter carne up for admission on 1O.01.2025 and this Court ordered notice to the respondent. Pursuant to the said notice, the respondent entered appearance through his counsel. 1 1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners ald learned counsel for the respondent, the point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is, (whether the petitioners have made out any ground to interfere with ,, :' -.',i NNR,I ctp 40 2025 the impugnr:<l order dated 29.O8.2o24 in I.A.No.248 of 2024 in C..U.A.No.OS of 2o24 passed by the learned Principal l)istrict and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Giadwal? L2, POI|NT: This C )r-rrt perused the entire material on record includinpi the r:,rder, dated 29.08.2024 passed in I.A.'r1,r.248 of 2024 in C.M.A.No.05 of 2024, petition, grounds ol rltpeal in C.M.A.Nc,.C5 t1' 2024, plaint in O.S.No.63 of ltO2,.t, afidavit in I.A.No.489 ol '..tO22, written statement and counter- aff,rdavits and so al:;o the orders and documents liled as rnaterial papers. T'he grievance of the petitioners in .,his :evision petition irs that the trial Court by taking into consLd,:ration the material :Lva ilable on record and conte.ntions of the petitioners, (r ught to have granted stay of th<: or.d er and decree, dated 20.09.2023 passed in I.A.No..1B9 of 2022 in O.S.No.6{} of 2022 by the learned Junior (lirzil Judge, Alampur, p,:rL,iing appeal.

13. \o Coubt, prima facie, the learned Jtrn ior Civil Judge, AlarrLpu.r, having come to the conclusirrn r_tLat the respondent /plaintiff is in possession and enjoyrner: t of the suit scheriule propert5r, granted injunction. ,I,he saicl finding ]1 ;";" ilmxwdl crp,4O_2025 of learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur is assailed before the learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal- If the respondent/ plaintiff disobeyed the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur, the petitioners have a remedy under Order XXI Rule 37 of C.P.C for execution of the said order and decree passed by the Iearned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur.

14. The apprehension of the petitioners before t-his Court is that the respondent/plaintiff is trying to execute the decree and if the same is executed, the appeal frled by them will become infructuous ald they will be put to irrepirable 1oss.

15. No doubt, the order passed under Order XXKX Rules 1 and, 2 of CPC can be executable when there is disobedience or breach in respect of injunction granted, as the petitioners herein were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enj o5'T nent of the respondent over the suit schedule property. Obviously in a case where there is breach of injunction, then only execution of order of punishment for said breach would arise' But, it appears from the pleadings of the petitioners herein that as the said decree 7 NNR,J crp 40 2025 is being e,.<e,:r-Lt able as there is a frnding of the lea-ne<l Junior Civil Judge. FJrempur that the petitioners thereir:. were in possessiorr of sltit schedule property, which is sutrject, matter of the appca1 rrnd if the petitioners have a goocl case to succeed, tht,v riay place all the material before ttre appellate Court anc. ,1rrc ceed with disposal of the appeal. 'J r1 i1 and unless the r:srpondent herein is contemplating to ,:omnrit any breach, the qu:rrtion of execution of the said injunct-it r. order does not arise and as such the very apprehensior of the petitioners i.rp['e ars to be without any basis ald thi,s Court does not finrl rrny reason to interfere with the order pa ssed by the learneri l)ri rr:ipal District Judge, Jogulamb:r GzLdw, rl.

16. For the aJoresaid reasons stated above. this Court does not f,rncl a-: y reason to interfere with the impugnerl order, dated 29.()8.2O:,14 passed by the learned Princil;al tristrict Judge, Jo6pta,nrba Gadwal. But, considering the frrct hat the C.M.A is cf th.t: year 2024 and the suit pertatns to t 13 year 2022, the cartisrs are directed to proceed with the ,lpp:rr1 filed before the lear ned Principal District Judge . T'te lr,arned Principal D'st;'j:t Judge, Jogulamba Gadr-al Drs rict is directed tc, ,:lispcse of the main appeal i.e. C.M.A,Nc 05 of r ( 8 NNR,J ctp-4O-2025 2024, as expeditiously as possible, after glving due opportunity to both the Parties. 17 - With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stald closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/-A.V.S, PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District And Sessions Judge. Jogula Gadwal. (With records if any) ba Gadwal District, At

2. One CC to SRl. B.Venkateshwar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. Narasimhulu, K.B Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies s I HIGH COURT DATED:17/04t2]25 ORDER CRP.No.40 of 2025 QJ o. ..'9 ,-1HI:;I1 c^ (,( a {" ? iur,t 2025 ):- ^ \| 0 Ir CIVIL REVISION PE'I'II'I(].N IS DISPOSED OF G)C"?iq \