High Court · 2025

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT i?T"x?ii..jx,?l[:i"jggrt1?,f:;i:H?y,i[Tt*:?1g,#i,Ta3"" IANo: 10F 2025 ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF Petition under section 1.51-oF cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidav* fired in suoport or tn" f"Itio,i,',#'lrinn courr mav be preased to stay of arr further proceeding^,-in prrruanr"liti,," .#",. and decree dt.z*tost2ozs passed in r'A'No 316 ot zozq i^'o s.*". sii";i;;;^on the fire of the Aoent to uovernment, Bhadradri Kothagudem, p"nOing a;;;l Counset for the petitioner: SRl. PONAMPELLI RAVI Counsel for the Respondents: KRTSHNA KTSHORE KOWURT The Court made the following: ORDER of the above revision_. The H ott' Sri J J.Sreenivas Civil Rev n Pe No.2 4o2 of 2025 Order: This Civil Revision Petidon has been liled invokit-rg the onstitution of lndia aggrieved provisions under Article 227 ol thle C sed by the learned Agent to by the order dated 28 'O5 '2025 Pas 1n I.A.No.315 of 2024 1n Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem O.S.No.326 of 2,,24,where under temporary injunctron appiication Iited by the re spondent/ plaintiff was allowed in respect of the suit schedule ProPerty'

2. Heard Sri P.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Krishna Kishore, learned counsel for respondent'

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they \\rere arrayed by the Agent to Government' Brief facts of the case: 4. The plaintiff has filed the suit in O'S'No'326 of 2024 before the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i'e' Ac.1-O0 in Sy.No.400 /331176 situated at Aswapuram revenue village and Mandal. The plaintiff has inherited the said property from his forefathers. Along with the said suit., the plaintiff hled ) 2 I.A.No.316 of 2024 for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit scheduie property. In the said application, the defendant filed counter denying the averments made by the plaintiff. Learned Agent to Government ailowed the said application and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff by its order dated 28.O5.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision petition has been hled. Submiss lons oft he learnedco unseI for the et ndant: ttloner

5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Agent to Government, without properly considering the contentions of the defendant in I.A.No. 316 of 2024, granted interim injunction without assigning any reasons. He further submitted that the plaintiff is not having any semblance of right or interest over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff obtained revenue entries in his name by misrepresenting the facts before the revenue authorities. Even according to the plaintiff, he purchased the land to an extent of Ac.O_2O guntas in the very same survey number from the brother of defendant.

5.2 He further submitted O.S.No.42 1 of 2022 before that the defendani filed suit in the Special Assistant Agent to 3 Government and Sub-Divisional Magistrate' Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam against his brother for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.O-2o guntas covered by Sy'No'400/33 and the said suil rn as decreed on 13'12'2022' Thereafter' the defendant hled tr.P. No.5 of 2023 seeking police protection and the same rvas allowed on 28.04.2023 ' When the police failed to provide police aid, the defendant approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No.14069 of 2023 and the same was disposed of on l0'01'2024' TheabovesarddocumentswereplacedbeforethelearnedAgentto Government, however, learned Agent to Government without considering the same, allowed I A' No'316 of 2024' Hence' the impugned order passed by the learned Agent to Government is contrary to the material on record and the same is liable to be set 6 Submissions of the learned counse lfort he respondent/ plaintiff:

6.1 Per contra, Iearned counsel for respondent vehemently contended that the subject property claimed in the present suit in O.S.No.326 of 2Cl24 and the property claimed by 1'he defendant in o.s. No.42 1 of 2022 are different and distinct Basing upon the decree passed in O.S.No.42l of 2022, the defendart is not entitled t" t""l::l'th the schedule property in o.s. No.326 of 2024. He 4 further submitted that the learned Agent to Government considering the contentions ol.the respective parties due verifrcation of the documents, which are filed b rightly ailowed the I.A. by giving cogent reasons. grounds to interfere with the impugned order Iearned Agent to Government. and also after y the parties, There are no passed by the Analysis: 7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveais that the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.326 of 2024 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property i.e. agriculture land to an extent of Ac. 1-oo in sy.No.40ol 33/i.76. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.31 6 of 2024 for grant of ad interim injunction invoking the provisions of Order XXXH, Rules I and 2 of C.P.C. read with Rule 42 of the Telangana Agency Rules, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as .Rules). The specific case of the plaintiff is that he has inherited the suit schedule property from his forefathers and his name was entered in the revenue records and pattadar passbook was also issued in his favour. The defendant without having any right over the suit schedule property is trying to interfere with the suit schedule property. t-i{dr-.':+ 5

8. The case of defendant is that the plaintiff had purchased only O-20 guntas of land from his own brother and that lhe defendant himself had earlier f,iled suit in O'S'No 42 | of 2022 against his on'n brother' M'Rambabu' before the Special Assistant Agent to Govcrnment and Sub-Divisional Magistrate' Mobile Cour[ atBhadrachalamtbrgrantofperpetualinjunctionandthesaid suit was decreecl on 13'12'2022 Subsequently' the defendant hled E.P. No.5 of 2023 seeking police protection and the said E'P' was al1ou,ed on 28.04.2023. As the police failed to provide protection' thc defendant approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No.14O69 ol 2023 seeking police protection and the same was disposed of on 10.01.2024' Despite the said orders' the plaintiff without ha\ring any manner of right is interfering in respect of the suit schedule ProPertY. g. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that the suit schedule property covered in O S No 42l of 2022 and the suit schedule property mentioned in O S No 326 of 2024 are different.

10. It is pertinent to mention that the impugned order dated 2a.O5.2O25 passed by the learned Agent to Government reveals lhat in the analysis portion, instead of taking an independent .\\ 6 evaluation, the learned Agent to Government has reiterated the averments and also the submissions made by the respective parties without asslgnrng any reasons, allowed the I.A. and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

11. It is pertinent to mention that as per the provisions of Order XXXX, Rules 1 and 2 of C.p.C. read with Rule 42 of the Agency Rules, the learned Agent to Government ought. to have given reasons for granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Agent to Government is adjudicating the proceedings as a civil Court. Whether granting or rejecting the application filed under Order XXXX, Rules I and 2 of C.p.C., the Court ought to have recorded the reasons especially for granting injunction, the party has to satisfy the three essential ingredients, namely: (i) whether the piaintiff is in prima facie possession of the suit schedule propertjr as on the date of the suit, (ii) whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, and (iii) whether he would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted. In the present case, white adjudicating I.A. No.316 of 2024, LJne learned Agent to Government has not assigned any reasons, as mandated under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules I and 2 of C.P.C. r/w Rule 42 of tlre Rules and the same is contrary to law. It is settled principles of law that quasi_judicial ?. 7 authorities or judiciat authorities or administrativc authorities while passing orders reasons must be recorded'

12. In GaddiPati SambrajYam and Mahalakshmamma and othersl, the another v Panguluri erstwhile High court of AndhraPradeshheldthatwhiledecidingtheapplicationsunder Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of require satisfaction of three conditions: (1\ a pima facie case, (2) balance of convenience in favour of the applicant, and (3) risk of irreparable injury if refused'

13. In Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v' Harish Ambalal Choksi2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of appellate Court interference in matters of temporary injunctions' The case arose from a family property dispute where the trial court had granted an injunction under Ordcr XXXTX of C'P C' restraining alienation of the suit propcrty, finding a primo facie case ' balance of conveniencc and irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiffs' The Gujarat High Court, however, set aside the injunction' holding that the trial court had virtually decreed the suit The Supreme Court restored the injunction, reiterating that appellate Courts under Order 43 CPC cannot substitute their own discretion for that of the trial court unless the latter,s order suffers from perversity, r (i995) I ALD 358 2 l2o24l tl scc 351 8 (r arbitrariness, mala fi :eparable injury and bale or ignorance of settled law' It reafhrmed injunction' the plaintiff must establish o, convenience, that for grant of ,.*rot" a prima facie case, ,.,'otuo and that no mini_trial should be undertaker,r"" at this stage. The Court also held that, notwithstanding the doctrine of 1is pend.ens under Section 52 of the Transfer of propertJr Act, 1gg2 injunctions may still be necessary to prevent pendente litetransfers that could create third_part5r equities and complicate the litigation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court,s order, restored the injunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property.

14. It is also reievant to mention that this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1234 of 2O2O d,ated 28.07.2021, while considering the provisions of Rules S 1 , 60 ald 1 I S of the Civil Rules of practicc, specifically held that even in Interlocutory Applications, the Court has to refer the documents filed by the respective partics i.e., plaintiff and defendant, as ?, series and B, series. In the case on hand, learned Agent to Government has not mentioned the documents hled by the parties while allowing the application.

15. For the foregoing reasons, wh e exercising the supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 222 of the Constitution of India, holds,tfr, ,fr. impugned order dated 2B.OS.2O2S passed bv 9 the learned Agent lo Government in I A'No'316 ol 2024 rt O.S.No.326 ol 2O24is liable to be set aside Accordingly' the said order is set aside and the learned Agent to Government is directed to decide the application in I A'No 316 of 2C)24 in accordance with |a1s, after giving an opportunity to both the parties' w-ithin a period of six (6) rveeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' 16. With the above direction' the Civil Revision Petition ls allowed. There shall be no order as to costs' As a seqtlel' miscellaneous petitions' pending if any' stand closed Sd/- M JAWAHAR REDDY, ANT REGISTRAR' //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER o n e F a i r c. ov,t"#fi iX'r[ :J: ^T i,lT'F: rs RE E N rvAs RAo To, The Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem 11 LR CoPies il;U";; a;"retary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi il; S";";;irt, Advocates Association Library' High Court for the State of i"trng"n", iign Court Buildings at Hyderabad' - -. .^, o;; ic to'sni poNnuPELLl RAVI Advocate [oPUC] O;; Ca io SRI KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURIAdvocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies

1.. 2. a

5. 6. 7. GR w- HIGH COURT DATED:0910912025 2 o sEP ?!fr i Dr'',. ORDER CRP.No.2402 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION \ 14 I I i I I I i I i J . I I I I i