In Uppu Seetharama Raju and Another v. Boda Seetlra, in C.R.P.No

1. Kotamarthi Srinu and another, S/o Jogaiah Age 40 years, Occ Agriculture R/o Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri kothagudem Dist.

2. Dara Venkateswarlu, S/o Pakiru late Age 45 years, Occ Agriculture R/o Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradrikothagudem Dist. ...Petitioners/Respondent No. 2 & 3/Defendants No. 2 & 3 AND

1. Smt. Daara Nakshtramma, Wo late Sayibu Age 48 years, Occ Agriculture R/o H. No. 4- 370, Vijayanagaram Colony Sarapaka Village,.Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri kothagudem Dist. ...RespondenUPetitioner/Plai ntiff

2. Kotamarthi Hanumanthu, S/o Bullaiah Age Se year6, Occ Employee in ITC PSPD, Sarapaka Village Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri kothagudem Dist. 3. Daara Srinu, S/o Pakiru Age 42 years, Occ Contract employee in lTC, PSPD, Sarapaka Village Burgampahad IiIandal, Bhadradrikothagudem Dist. ...Respondents/Respondents No. 1 & 4/Defendants No. 1&4 (Respondent No.2 & 3 are not necessary parties) lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Suspend the operation of the order passed in l. A. No. 43512021 in O. S. No. 43812021 DT 28- 4- 2021 on the file of sub- Divisional Magistrertr:r (Mobile court) at Bhadrachalam, Bhadradrikothagudem Dist., pending dispos,al of the main revision. IA NO: 10F 202s Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrs,tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court mal' be pleased to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition by Vacating the order in l/ 1 of 2023 in CRP No 924 ot 2023, daled 2410312023. "lo Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Mummaneni Srinivas Rao Counsel for the ResPondent : Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON No.924 of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is frled seeking the following relief: "to set aside order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri-kothagudem District, passed in LA.No.435 l2O2t in O.S.No.438/202 1, dated 28.04.2O2t, and pass order or orders.... ".

2. Heard Sri Mummareni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.V.Hdnumantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

3. Learneci counsel for the petitioner submits tirat the iearned trial Court has passed an order dated

28.04.2021, contrary to law, material evidence on record and probabilities of the case. But, no reasons are recorded while granting the ad-interim injunction as per Order XXXX Rule 3 of Civii Procedure Code. Since, no prima facie case, balance of conveyance and irreparable loss is mentioned therein and there is no direction to -- -/ 2 comply the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule li (a) of Civil Procedure Code and the order passed tJ-Lerein in LA.l,lo.435 of 2021 dated 28.04.2021 is liabl-' to be set aside. He also placed reliance on the orders l:,assed by this Court in C.R.P.No.985 of 2O2O dated 15.O3'.2022.

4. Learned counsel for respondent N<r. L-plaintiff submits that parties may be directed to mainti:in status quo till disposal of I.A.No.435 of 2021 for u'hich the learned counsel for the petitioners acceded.

5. The learned Sub-Divisiona-l Magistrat e (Mobile Court), Bhaclrachalam has passed an order in I A.No.435 of 2021 in O.S.No.438 of 2021 dated28.O4.2O2 L and the portion of the order is as under: "After hearing argurnents of the advocate for the pt ritioner this Court doth order that 'interim injuncLion' t e issued restraining the respondents/ defendants her henc h:ren or anybody on her behalf from interfering with the tr,eaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/ plaint if l' in the schedule mentioned property situated at Sarapaka Village of Burgamphad Mandal, Bhadradrikothag-rdem Lristrict. The Interim Injunction Order is granted untrl further orders. The schedule property land is of Ac.3-00 F;L:t[as in Su$,Sy No.262 with boundaries." 3

6. As rightly contended by leamed counsel for the petitioner, the lealned trial Court has not assigned any reasons while grarting ad-interim injunction and the order has to specifically state that the petitioner-plaintiff has a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury will be caused, if the interim oi-der is not granted. Similarly, the order does not speak that there shall be compliance of Order XXXX Rule 3(a) of Civil Procedure Code.

7. In Uppu Seetharama Raju and Another Vs. Boda Seetlra, in C.R.P.No.985 of 2O2O, dated 75.O3.2022, this Court observed at Para No.9, which reads as under : Para-9: "ln view of the law laid by the Honble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. Municipal Corporaticn of Delhi (1 993) 3 SCC 161, even for passing an e,.. parte injunction ordcr, the Court must assign reasons, but the Agency Court has mechanically granted ex parte temporaly injunction order.without assigning any reasons. In acidition to it, the Agency Court has gran{ed police protection in favour of the plaintiff and marked a tf the same to the Station House Officer, Dhummugudem for "opy necessary protection to the plaintiff. The learr-red Sub-Divisional Magistrate has committed jurisdictional error in passing such 4 order and it is against the spirit of law laid by the Hon,bk: Supreme Court in the above decision. Further, a copy of the satci order is mechanically marked to the concerned police. Thus, tht: Agency Court has committed jurisdictional error granting rrLcr;hanical, unreasoned ex parte injunction order and also granting 1;olice aid to protect the possession of the plaintiff pursuant to such orders without there being any such request by the plaintiff,.

8. Since, learned counsel for the respond(:nts has submitted that the parties to the suit to maintarrL status quo in respect of the petition schedule prop.-r.ty, for which the pet.itioner counsel acceded. In viev,, of the decision stated supra the following order is passe:1,

9. The Civil Revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobil,:: Court) Bhadrachalam in I.A.No.435 of 2O2l in O.S.No.,l3g of 2021 dated 28.04.2021 is set aside and the rr.ertter is remitted back to the learned Triai Court fc r fresh disposal, by giving opportunity to both the parties to advance their submissions, till then the partir sr shall maintain status quo. J I I 5 Miscellarreous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/- C DEEPIKA TANT REGIST RAR CTION OFFICER To, Court) at Bhadrachalam. t The speciar Assisrant Agent and sub-divisionar tvagistrate (rvobire 2. One CC to Sri Mummaneni Srinivas Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri [Vl.V Hanumantha Rao, Advocate IOpUC] 4, Two CD Copies DL/ABK '2,:, t ?i SiP t\i ,. .':---., . ,:,..r l- IM;' :,, .,, n .:/'' HIGH COURT DATED:18/09/2025 ORDER CRP.No.924 ol 2023 ALLOWING THE CRP 2h I1lrf