The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BtE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAo NANDII]KoNDA !lI.t/I_]I REVISrON PETITION NO.62 OF 2o2li ORDER: Thi s ( )i vil Revision petition is filed t,y the petitioners,,'a1rpre1lants/respondents aggrievecl bJ, tl.e order, dated 06.09.2'(.t24 in I.A.No.24Z of 2024 in C.t4.,{.No.O4 of 2024 passt,d by the learned principal District ancl Sessions Judge, Jcgulaorba Gadwal.

2. ir:a.-d Mr.B.Venkateshwar Reddy, learned <;ounsel for the p.ti:iorr:rs and Mr.K.B.Narasimhulu, learned <:ounsel for the resip )rr,lent. Perused the record.

3. 'lLLc brief facts of the case are that the res pondent herein fiL:d a suit being O.S.No.62 of 2022 on th,: file of learned Jr-rriol Civil Judge, Alampur, against the per,itioners herein for p,:rrr lnent injunction. In the said suit I.1 .l{o.4g7 of 2022 w;rs fil:rl seeking ad. interim injunction restri .ing the petitioners; lLt:rein from interfering with th,: ..>t:aceful possessiorL rln,l enjoyment of the respondent over rhe suit schedule Jrrope rtr.. The learned Junior Civil Judgt:, Aiampur, hawing heard L:arned counsel on both sides eLn,l having 2 .l NNR,J ctp 62_2025 perused entire material on record, granted temporary inj unction.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred C.M.A.No.O4 of 2024 in which they filed I.A.No.247 of 2024 in C.M.A.No.O4 of 2024 under Order XLI Rule 5 (1) read with Section 151 of C.P.C seeking stay of order and decree, dated 28.O9.2023 in I.A.No.487 of 2022 in O.S.No.62 of 2022, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur.

5. The learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal, after hearing both parties and taking into consideration the counter-allidavit, dismissed the said application onO6.09.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision case is hled by the petitioners on the following ground: "The order passed in I.A.No.487 of 2022 is executable in nature and in the event of petitioners violate the temporary injunction granted under Order XXXX Rule 2-A of C.P.C. the petitioners seek punishment for disobedience of the said order. On the said ground, the learned Principai District Judge was pleased to dismiss the said application."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that .. the trial Court, without considering the documents filed by i --- o 3 NNR,J ctQ_62_2025 the petit.ion,: r:;, has erroneously dismissed the a'rlrlication filed by r,h,rrn . He further submits that the petit orte r s' father purchasod t.l'e subject land by virtue of register3d fizde Deed bearing drrcrnrent No.693 of 1979, dated 1I.t)7.',979 and after his r.enrise, the petitioners are in peacefr.rl p,)rlsession ald enjol'ne:rrt. of the same. Learned counsel fur the - submits that the trial (")ourt failed to consider the originetl Al.f eement, dated 25,.t.4. tt)96, alleged to have been exe<:uted art ong the family ment)()i s by partitioning the properties. 7, Ir, r s contended that in fact, petitionr:r Ir o.? is arr illiterate a-ncl l.le used to keep his left hand thumb ir'rpression for his sigr ature. But, the alleged Agreement, dated

25.O4.199(t :ontains the signature of petitione'r No.2 in English, u'lrrch does not belong to him. The respondr:n -,i J,lrintiff did not file the alleged Agreemr nt, dated

25.04.199(; He also further submits that thr: tr iz:l Court failed to consirler the criminal case lodged by pertitirrrrer No.2 before I)S I hdavelli against the respondent / pl, r-intiff in respect of zr k:ged fabricated and forged Agrer,m e rt-, dated

25.O4.1,99(t ''i' ii:n-: .:xxg",ww-r'!'ll:if a r ' -:Y'lI-;1..;-''-l--. ''l 4 .-x .) NNR,I crp_62-2025

8. He also further submits that as a counter blast, the respondent along with other brothers filed suits against the petitioners without any cause of action and the sarne a,re pending before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur. It is tLe case of the petitioners that the respondent herein has obtained the order of injunction without there being any right ald title over subject property and the learned trial Court without considering the said aspects passed impugred order dism issing the application.

9. The respondent hled counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the afhdavit filed in support of petition ald submits that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal 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. 1(). The matter carne up for admission on 1O.O1.2O25 and this Court ordered notice to the respondent. Pursuant to the said notice, the respondent entered appea-rance through his counsel. 7 5 NNR,J .t) 62 2025

11. Faving heard learned counsel for the pelitioners and learned cornsel for the respondent, the point thal arises for consid,:rrrti, rtr in this revision petition is, ..whetlrr:r the petitioners have made out any ground to interfe::e with the impugned order dated 06.O9.2024 in I.A.No.24Z of 2024 in C,M,.A,.No.O4 oI 20.24 passed by the Learned Principal l)irrtrict and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal? L2. POI]TT: This C.o u rt perused the entire matenal on r.ecord including the orcter, dated O6.09.2O24 passed in l.fi.Nc .,.>.47 of 2024 rn C.M.A..No.O4 of 2024, petition, grounds o: appeal in C.M.A.No.C4 ol )',O24, plaint in O.S.No.62of 20'.22, aIfi<le.vit in I.A.No.487 o: '.2)22, written statement and couLnte r-af lllavits ald so all;o t-lrt: orders and documents filed as n Le ,terial papers. I'hr: lJrievalce of the petitioners in th: s r e.rision petidon is that rhe trial Court by taking into considr:rat:cn the material eLvrrilz:Lrle on record and contentions rlf the petitioners, t,uE,l,t to have grarrted stay of the ordr :r a1d decree, datecl !C:.O9.2O23 passed in LA.No.487 of 2),.22 in O.S.No.62 o| '.t-()22 by the learned Junior Ciyil I:dge, Alampur, p,:n djrrsl appeal. 6 NNR,J crp_62_2025 1 h -

13. No doubt, pnma facie, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur, having come to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and granted injunction. The said finding 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 Civit Judge, Alampur, the petitioners have a remedy under Order XXI Rule 37 of C.p.C for executing the said order and decree passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur. L4. The apprehension of the petitioners before this 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 and they will be put to irreparable loss.

15. No doubt, the order passed under Order XXXIX 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 enjoyment of the respondent over \:- 1 1 NNR,I c,p_62_2025 the suit sr:herl I le property. Obviously in a casr: rvtrere there is breach of irrjunction breach, then only executlon of order of punishmenl for said breach would arise, But, it appe.u.s from the pleading;s of the petitioners herein that as the sai I decree is being e:<e,:ur.ab1e as there is a finding of the lea:-ner{ Junior Civil Jud11e fJrampur that the petitioners tl-rere in were in possessiorr of s;r.Lit schedule property, which is sutrjecr. matter of the ap pe,ai. :rnd if the petitioners have a goocl c:.se to succeed, thel' r': ay place all the material before tle a.c cellate Court and Jrroc:ed with disposal of the appeal. IJntil . ald unless the rr:sJ,r:ndent herein is contemplating to r:om.r it any breach, th: rlur:sition of execution of the said injunctic n order does not r Ls,s ald as such the very apprehens;ion tf the petitioners appears to be without any basis amd thir,r Court does not fi rc ;rlr reason to interfere with the order pasried by the learnecl F'rirLc:ipal District Judge, Jogulamba GaCu.erl.

16. For ihe aforesaid reasons stated above, thir.; Court does not firrd arrv reason to interfere with the impuglne<t ,l1dsr, dated 06.C9.2r124 passed by the learned principal ).strict Judge, Jogrl;rrnba Gadwal. But, considering the fact tirrlt the C.M.A is o1' thr:, rrear- 2024 and the suit pertains tc tlre year I I , I NNR,J crp_67_2025 2022, the parties are directed to proceed with the appeal frled before the learned Principal District Judge. The learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal District is directed to dispose of the main appeal i.e. C.M.A.No.O4 of 2024, as expeditiously as possible, after glving due opportunity to both the parties. L7. 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 stand closed. Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, ECTION OFFICER \ Gadwal. '1. The Principal District And S 2. One CC to SRt. B VIIKAJESHWAR REDDYAdvocate tOpUCl 3. One cc to sRt. NARASTMHULU, ri b norlli" Iopuc] 4. Two CD Copies. essions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal District, At PM/PSL s HIGH COURT DATED:171C)4i2025 I ORDER CRP.No.62 ,of 2025 e-f, o ,, a' _-.:.= i- 3-ir L:i ;a- -1\ t Cr 'l 2 luti r025 (r z - '-,ri r ra r '. i: . , , '.,.' DISPOSING C)F THE CIVIL REVISION PETII.IION G)Griq gr- iAt\n