The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendant No.1 & 2 f_ t F i i, E I fiI I I lA NO: 1 oF 202'.2 Petition urrder Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition; the High Court may be pleased to Suspend of operation of the Order dated 1010612021 passed in l.A. No.520 of 2021 in l.A. No. 512021 in O.S. No. 6/2021 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and :jps6ial Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, pending disposal of main CRP. CIVIL REVISIONi PETITI ON NO: 2025 OF 2021 Petition urrder Article 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 0410112021 Passed in l.A.No.S of 2021 in O.S. No. 6 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadracl'alam. Between: Bezawada {irinivasa Rao, S/o Late Narsaiah Agriculture R/o Pardhasaradhipuram Village, District. aged about 62 years, Occ. Penuballi Mandal,Khammam ... Petitioner/RespondenUDefendant No.3 AND

1. Bezawada Janardhana Rao S/o Late Narsaiah, aged72 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o Lingagudem Village, Penuballi Mandal,Khammam District. .. . Res pondenUPetitioner/Plai ntiff 2. Oruganti Krishna Rao, S/o Arjun aged 37 yeats, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Uppala Chelakala Village,Penuballi Mandal Khammam District.

3. Oruganti Ramakrishna, S/o Pentaiah,aged 35 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Uppala Chelakala Village, Penuballi Mandal Khammam District. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendant No.1 & 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2Ct21 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend of operation of the Order dated 0410112021 passed in l.A.No.5 of 2021 in O.S.No.6 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, pending disposal of main CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners in both CRPs :SRl KONDAPARTHI SRINIVASA Counsel for the Respondents in both CRPs : SRI UMAKANTH REDDY representing SRI RUTHWIK REDDY The Court marle the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TETANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA ON Nos.4O of and,20125 of 2O2L N CTVIL DATE: 16.L2 .20.25 Between B,ezawada Srinivas Rao Bezavtada Janardhan Rao and 2 others AND ..Petitioner Respondents COMMON ORDTR The civil Revision Petition No.4o of 2022 is filed seeking the following relief: "to set aside the Order dated 10.06-2021 passed in I.A. No.520 of 2O21 in I.A. /Vo. 5 of 2021 in O.S. No. 6 of 2O21 on th.e file of court of the Sub Diui.sional Maitristrate and Special Assisfant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam" 2 The Civil Revision Petition No.2O25 of 2021 is filed seeking the following relief: "to set aside tle Order dated 04.01.2021 passed in I.A.No.S of 2O21 in O.S No- 6 of 2021 on th-e ftle of ourt of the Sub Diui.sional Magistrate and Special Assrlsf ant Ag qt rlAobile Court, Bhadr achalam" 2 *RP-+O-202' U r,rr)#'l

3. Heard Sri -Kondaparthi St'Lnlaas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umakanth Reddg, learned counsel representing Srz Ruthwlk Reddg, learned counsel for the responderLts.

4. The brief facts are that the petitioner herein is defendant No.3/respondent who is the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit has filed O.S. Vo.6 of 2021 seeking for grant of perpetual injunction against the respondents therein. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.ltlo.S of 2021 is filed by the plaintiff under Rule a2 @l e (c) of Agency Rules, 1924 therein seeking an ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the petition schedule property and the trial co'-rrt granted ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendant therein from interfering with the peaceful possessic,o ond enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit schedule property 3 NN& I cRP_40_2 02 2 & 2025 -2021

5. Subsequently, the plaintiff therein also liled I.A.No.52O of 2O2l seeking police protection for implementation of the order passed in I.A.No.S of 2O2l and the trial Court"granted necessary protection to the schedule property from interference of respond.ents therein with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/ plaintiff.

6. The main grievance of the petitioner/defendant herein is that the learned trial Court without giving any notice to the respond.ents and without thereby giving any subsequent date passed the impugned ord.er against the respondents which reads as follows: "(Jpon motion made unto thi"s Court by Sn Paliuela. V.S.e.Xarasimha Rao, B.Com., BL., Aduocate for Petitioner/ Ptaintiff and afier pentsal of affidauit of Petitioner and docttments filed thereon and afi.er hearing of tlle arguments of the Petitioner counsel, considering tle matenal doanments which shotus the prima facie case in fauour of the petitioner/plaintiff, thi's Court DOTH oRDER -tTTNt AN AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION bE bSUEd tO TEStTAiN tle respondents/defendants anl tleir seruants, aggnts' lenchmen or anybodg on beh.a.lf of respondents from ang waA interfering tttith the peaceful possession an'd' enjogment of the petitioner/plaintiff ouer tle petition schedule property until futther orders - " \ <5 4 NNR,I cRP_40_2 0 2 2 & 2025 _202L

7. The said order reveals that the said ad-interim injunction was an ex parte order, ',r,ithout giving any subsequent date or any prior notice to the respondents/defendants. The impugned. order dated O4.O 1.2021 does not say that the learned Trial Court has passed the said order on merits by considering the material documents and the said impugned order has passed until further orders and passing of the said order until further orders amounts to disposal of I.A.No.5 of 2021 finally.

8. Admittedly, it shows that the trial Court while passing the ad-interim injunction order, the trial court did'not choose to consider the provision under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of C.P.C, and there is no direction given for compliance of Rule 3 and also no further date was given for the I.A,, as such, the impugned order is not in accordance with law, prima facie there is a clear error apparent on the face of the record, as such, the same deserves to be set asid,:.

9. Recording the above observations, these civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 04.0 L.2o2l passed by the trial court in I.A.No.S of€L21 is hereby set aside and subsr:quent order passed in l_,A.No.520 of 2o2r dated -'--.-.-.-.- 5 NN& I c RP_40_2 02 2 & 2025 _202L

10.06.2021 is also set aside.

10. Since, the very injunction which is granted by the trial Court is being set aside by this Court, the impugned order granting police protection does not arise; and accordingly I.ANo.S2O of 2021 and I.A.No.S of 2O2L is restored back to its original file on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam and the matter is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam to hear the applications afresh and dispose in accordance with law. 1 1. It is needless to mention that the trial Co.urt shall issue notice to the respondents/defendants and thereafter dispose the said applications by following due procedure contemplated under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. Sd/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER /ffRUE COPY/' To Bhadrachalam 1 The sub Divisional Magistrate and special Assistant Agent, Mobile court' 2. one cc to sRl KoNDAPARTHI SRINIVASA, Advocate [oPUC] 5. one cc to sRt RUTHWTK REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ADK'PR H- : HIGH COURT DATED:16/1 212025 COMMON ORDER iitiu StA i{\ ( I 3 0g FrB 2[26 -l) I i I * CRP.Nos.40 of 2022 and 2025 of 2021 ALLOWING THE BOTH GRPs WITHOU-T COSTS G *6e T*