1. Yaparla Mohan Reddy v. 1. Jabbu Rajashekhar

Petition under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 of CPo circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support : petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant ad-intor restraining the respondents/ defendants from interfering zrr peaceful possession of the petitioners over the suit schedu e disposal of the C.R. P. by dispensing with prior notice to the praying that in the the Civil Revision m injunction orders d obstructing in the 1 properties pending lespondents SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTIES Lands in Sy. No. 86 Extent Ac. 06- 07 gts., Sy. No. 89 Ext. r:.10- O4gts., Sy. No. 91 Extent Ac. 0B- 34gts., situated at Jupally village of ( )harakonda tt/andal, Nagarkurnool District. Boundaries: East:- Sy. No 92 North:- Sy. No. 83 & 90 West:-Sy I lo. 73 South:- Ro Ld leads from Pothepalll o Gokaram village, Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K. Sreenivas Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 6: Smt. B. Kavita Yadav The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CML REVISION PETITION No.251O of 2024 ORDER: This is a Civil Revision Petition preferred by the petitioners/ appellants aggrieved by the order passed b3r the learned Principal District Judge, Nagarkurnool (for short 'the Appellate Court') in C.M.A.No.l5 of 2022, dated O1.06.2024 confirming the dismissal order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kalrvakr-rrthy (for short 'the Trial Court') in I.A.No.B04 of 2021 in O.S.No.305 of 2021, dated 28.02.2022.

2. Heard Sri K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for the revlslon petitioners and Smt. B. Kavita Yadar,, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record Facts of the case:

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are plaintiffs in the suit. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction with respect to immovable property in Sy.No.86, extent Ac.6.07 Gts., Sy.No.89, extent Ac.10.04 Gts., Sy.No.91, extent Ac.8.34 Gts., situated at Jupally ) ) 2 Village of Charakonda Mandal rrvhich is bourt,l :d by trast Sy.No.92, West: Sy.No.73, North: Sy.No.83 :-rd 90 ald South: Road rvhich leads from Pothepally t c Gokaram Along u'ith the suit, the petitioners had fiied . \.No.804 of 2021 to restr.lin the respondents from interferir e rvith their possessron or,e r the suit schedule lands.

4. Thc srn-rple case of lhe petitioners was il at theJ' are the ou'ners of suit schedule lands and the revl rue records bear testimony ro the same. While so, the resl ondents do not have an1- right over the lands but they har: conspired and are trying to encroach on the suit I inds, particularly, o11 02.05.2021, u,hen there wa; attempt to encroach the suit schedule lands. Thereforc a suit for perpetual injunction u'as fi1ed. The respond,: rts claimed their lands to be situated in Sy.Nos.S7, 88 96 and 95 abutting north side of the suit schedule lands and therefore, they have no objection ln cas l temporary injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner s in respect of their lards. Further, the respondents pleac ed that the petitioners are having political clout coupled ,r'ith money )) and muscle power and therefore, creating disturbarce and trying to usurp the lands of innocent and illiterate people. There are two surveys done vide File Nos.A4 1292/2007, dated 04.lO.2OO7 and A4/231512OO7, dated 17.04.2O08, but, the petitioners are dissatisfied li'ith the panchalarna as well as sketch map appended thereto The respondents denied making attempt to encroach into thc petitioners.

5. During enquiry, the petitioners got marked trxs.Pl P37 ald the respondents got marked Exs.Rl to R16

6. Upon considering the arguments and material documents exhibited, the Trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the petitioners have shown false boundan' on the southern side of the suit schedule lands as road leading from Pothepally to Gokaram. In that context, reference is made to Ex.R3 panachanama dated

04.lO.2OO7 and Ex.RS panchanama dated 20.09.2O18. It is held that the petitioners might have estabiished ownership and possession over the suit lands but they must establish balance of convenience in their lavour .,i, I {t I i ! t I 4 Wh ile so, Exs. R I to R 16, more particularly. I x. R 1 shows that there is a record *,hich shou's that le southern boundarl' shou,n is incorrect. As per tonch nr Lp, the road leacling from Pothepally to Gokaram is sh6r,,.rr to be going from the middle of Sr..Nos.87, 88, 95 and 96 .e. the land u,hich belongs to the re spondents but is rr r I southern boundary. ol lar-rd of petitioners. Therefore, it i; opined that thc petitionel s have an intentior-r Lo grab the lar d belonging to the respondents, that there is a bounda.- issue and there is suppression ol material facts and tl:refore, the petition has been dismissed by vacating the ad interim injunction granted.

7. In appeal, the Appellate Court by c:der dated O1.06.2024 in CMA No. 15 of 2022 dismissed tl e said CMA confirming the orcler passed b1, the Trial Cour . Aggrieved bv the same, the prese nt revision petition is fik:r . Grounds of Revision:

8. In grounds of revision, the petitioners r eaded that for grant of temporary injunction, possessio.-r has to be ascertained, that Exs.P1 to P37 established tlL same and /t ) therefore, injunction ought to have been granted. It is pleaded that the Trial Court relied upon the panchanama dated 20.09.2018/Ex.R5 and carne to the conclusion that the road from Pothepally to Gokaram is passing through Sr'-Nos.87 and 88 but not on the southern side and therebr, dismissed the injunction petition. While arriving at such a conclusion, the Trial Court had failed to notice that Ex.R.5 parrchanama in File No.l/5Ol / 2018, dated 2O.O9.2018',r,as kept in abe-r-ance b1' the District Survey Offlcer (S & LRs) Nagarkurnooi vide order dated 23.O4 .2027 . It is pleaded that the D1,. Inspector of Survey, Kalwakurthy had orall_v inlormed that there was an error in the survey number and advised to apply for survey by the District Survev Oflicer Since the sketch map (tonch map) in Ex.RS panchanama tvas ln abeyance, both the Courts have erred in placing reliance upon the said documents while dismissing thc petition. Further, reliance is placed on Ex. R3 panachanama dated O4.IO.2OO7 and the tonch map appended to it when there was no reference of the map in the panchanama. Both the Trial and Appellate Courts relying on the said panchanama is erroneous and = 6 ,t,: ':! therefore, lcd to erroneous dismissal of the p( 1 tion. On the basis of afore mentionecl grounds, the petit r ners praved Lhat the in-rpugned orders be set aside ir rd to allow I.A.No.804 of 2O21. Contentions of the petitioners:

9. Accorcling to the learned counsel f<rr thr petitioners, the pzrnchanama/Ex.R5 dated 20.09.2011 in File No.l/50 I 12O18 and the ronch map dared 04. 10.2007 are the dor:uments ri'hicl'r u cre relied upon b-r, th: Trial Court and thr: Appellate Court for arriving at ar corr .lusion that the road from Pothepally to Gokaram is pas s ng through Sv.Nos.87, BB, 95 and 96. Hou'ever, tl-re saici s _ -\.e.\- had no re[erencc of map in the said document and sarr map ought not to have been relied upon in clenying injurt :tron to the petitioners. More particularl_r', it is argu( ( ttrat the panchanama dated 20.09.2O18 in File No.l/50 ,12Olg and the tonch map have been kept in abeyance vick, trder dated

23.O4.2021 and said point was not brought to t re notice of both the Trial Court and the Appellate I ourt. Said doctrment \\'as not marked as exhibit before tl-r,r Trial Court and it q,as also not placed before the Appellat: Court. In I I I I I I I .,/t, 7 case, the said document was made available before either of the Courts, the result of the petitions would have been different. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that it is neccssar)' that the document 23.O4.2021 be received by this Court and on the basis of its contents, injunction be granted. Alternativel-v, it is argued that to give fair opportunitl. for tl-re petitioners to seek injunction, the document dated 23.O1.2O21 be received and to remand the matter back to the Appellate Court for fresh adjudication Contentions of the res ndents: I0. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the revision pctition alleging that though the suit was filed on

12.O5.2021 ar-rd the order in CMA was passed on 01 .06.2024. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the document dated 23.O4.2021 was available prior to the institution of the suit. For any reason, in case, the said document was not produced before the Trial Court during enquiry in I.A.No.8O4 of 2021, the same \ tr"u" been produced before the Appellate Court by filing a petition under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC. The -J I 8 Iearned counsel for thc respondents objecterl r.cceiving of document dated 23.O4.2021 by this Cotrr in revision proceedings zis the Ordcr 41. Rulc 27 of ( IrC enables rccciving of aclrlitional docurments onlt' b_r tl I. Appeilate Clor-rrt but not b.1,. a Revision Court. Further thc learned counsel for tl-re respondents referred to the pl;L nt schedule and the sketch map appended to the plaint ,, Irich shows tu o roads, one road shou ing on the soutl-rern xrundan- of the suit schedurle propert-\.as road passing fr,: ; purn"r"rr, to Ciokaram. In addition. there is a road q.ittt rlol ted line u'rthout shou.ing as to u.hr:re said road is pass r re. It is the contention of the respondents that dotted l:r c r.r.hich is shou,n is the actual roitcl leacling from p r ltcpallv to (]okieram ar-r d that there is no road abutting th.: lirncl of the petitioners. It is argued that there is a malafid< |tention of grab bing the land belonging to tlte rcspo . lcnts ar.rd therefore, lalse boundaries are shown. It is i -guecl that therc are no grounds to interfere u.ith the ord<:r.r passecl by the Trial and Appellate Court. l i I I ! I I I i I : i 9 Findings of the Court: 1 1. Upon hcaring arguments of bot-h the counsels, to a specilic question as to u'hat is the explanation for the plaint schedule shovring the road from Pothepally to Gokaram being southern boundary by the suit schedule properties of the petitioners coupled r.r,ith the rough sketch appended to the plaint rvhich also shows the road from Pothepall-i, to Gokaram being southern boundar5r of the surt schedule property vis A-vis, the panchanama/ Ex.R5 dated 2O.O9.2O|B and the tonch map dated 04.IO.2OO7, the Iearned counsel for the petitioners banked upon the document dated 23.O4.2021 alleging that said panchanama and tonch map are kept in abeyance ald therefore, the cause of the petitioners for gralt of injunction be considered. To another specific question as to u,hat is the error committed by the Trial Court and the Appeliate Court in passing the order on the basis of the documents exhibited before them when lapse for non- production of "document dated 23.04.2021 is on the part of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners suggested that the document be received and the matter be ,t 1 l0 renranded to the Appellate Court for. consid< r nq tlte said document lor grant of injr_rnction.

12. wher-r cluestioned as to h or.l. the doc i ricrri crated 23.O4.202I can be reccived b-t. this Courr in revision prot eedings as Order 4l , Rule 27 of CpC . rnremplates rcc:cir.ing ol- additional clocuments in appe: I stagc. the learned cor.rnsel for the pctitioncr-s pra,ved rlirl in casc thcrr-- are rto merits in tl,rc CRp. a direction b,: t\'r: to the trial Court to dispose of the matter at the earlic s I in a given timc frarne. 'lhe learned counsel for the respr r rlcrrts also reltor-ted read-r for proceeding u,ith thc trial exp,, rtiotrslr..

13. This Corlrt upon hearing the arguments (f both the pzrrri<:s is ol the considered opinion that I r , (.r.ror is <:ornnritted b1, the Trial Court or the Appellarr Court in passing the order against the petitioners clen,r l, I gt.ant of tcnrp()ran. injunction as the san-re ,{ras bas: I on the doclrments produced before the said Courts. Thr locument datecl 23.04_202 I was not piaced before the .. ral Cour[ and the Appcllate Court. In case, the conter r.; oi. said document datcd 23.04.202 1 u.as not producecl I t,for-e the n Trial Court and the Appellate Court and said Courts have passed order on the basis of documents produced before them, no fault can be found with the order passed by the said Courts. The lapse if any is on the part of the petitioners for not producing the document dated

23.04.2021 before the Trial Court at the first instance and then before the Appellate Court by liling a petition under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC. In addition, the petitioners have no explalation for the southern boundarf in the plaint schedule showing road from Pothepally to Gokaram when the respondents have prima facie established that the said road is passing through their lar-rd in Sy.Nos.B7, 88, 95 and 96 L4 . Giving fictitious southern boundary for the suit schedule property and trying to reinforce the same by producing self-made sketch map n'hich is not in conforrnity with the documents prepared by the revenue authorities, prima facie, gives rise to a grave suspicion that there is malafide intention on the part of the petitioners to grab the land belonging to the respondents which is lying in -"' I i 12 betrveen the land of petitioners and thr: roerd from Pothepa111, to Gokaram

15. In vieu' of the foregoing discussion, th j-" Court does not see sn1' groutnd to interfere u,ith the orcic - passed bv the learnecl Principal District .Judge, Nagrlkurnool C.M.A.N"o.l:t of 2022, dated 01.06.2024 cor frrming the disrnissa.l order passed by the learned Pnr r ipal Junior Civil Judge. Kalrvakurthy in I.A.No.B0.1 c f 2021 in O.S.No.305 of 2O21 , dated 28.02.2022. There I'c no merirs in rhe revision petition and the same is lable to be disnrisseci.

16. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition i dismissed. No CoStS. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitj. ls, if an-y, pending in tiris Civrl Revision Petition shall sta: I closed. //TRUE COPY' To, '1 . The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy 2. The Principal District Judge, Nagarkurnool. SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASi SSTANT REGISTRARa SECTION OFFICER ? "'a.gl I 3 One CC to Sri K' Sreenivas' Advocate IOPUC] 4 One CC to Smt B Kavita Yadav' Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD CoPies Vlli PSt-w I A,-7/ \ \ HIGH COURT DATED: 2210812025 ORDER CRP.No.2510 of 2024 ( )- Iii, z$fi DISMISSING THE CRP '+.ot(d Y-'otn' I I i f