The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/ Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 / Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Order 39 Rule .1 & 2 R/w. Sec. 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 GRANT Ad-lnterim lnjunction restraining the Respondents and their agents from interfering with the ownership, possession, .:;,;o/ment of Petitioner/Revision Petitioner herein over the Suit Schedule Property pending disposal of this Suit Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SUJITH JAISWAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : SRI R. SUSHANTH REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Civil Revision Petition No.2542 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 30.07.2024, passed by the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in C.M'A'No'10 of

2. Heard Sri Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Sushant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2' Since respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not necessarJr parties in the present petition, notice to respondent Nos.3 to 5 are dispensed with.

3. The revision Petitioner IS plaintiff and the respondents herein are defendants in the suit. A For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suil uide O.S.No.181 of 2O2O seeking perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.7'04 gts., ).. Sy.No.1B 1 situated at trliminedu village, Ibrahimpatnarn Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, against \\ \ \ the defenclants. Along with the suit an application uide I.A.No. 37O of 2020 also frled seeking ad-interim injunction and the trial Court has granted ad-interim injunction uide order, dated 17.01.2022 in thvour of the plaintrff rcstraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 and 2 preferred CMA uide C.M.A.No.10 of 2O22 before V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The first appellate Court on due consideration of the evidence as well as the material placed o11 record, allowed the aplteal uide order, dated 30.07.2024 by setting aside the order, dated 17.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.37O of 2020 in O.S.No.181 ol 2O2O. Aggrieved by the order passed in CMA.No.10 of 2022, dated 30.07.2024, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that I.A.No.253 of 2024 was filed under order XLI Rule 27 r/w Section i51 of C.P.C by the plaintiff to TECCIVC certain documents before the first appellate Court, ::3:: however, the said application was not adjudicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that without relerring to the application filed by the plaintiff to recelve certain documents on record, the first appellate Court allowed the CMA on erroneous consideration, and the ad-interim injunction order granted by the trial Court uide order, dated 17.01.2022 was set aside.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has fairly submitted that without going into merits of the case, the matter may be remitted back to the first appellate Court and the hrst appellate Court may be directed to consider the I.A.No.253 of 2024 along with 't the CMA on its own merits.

8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this Court is of the considered view that the matter can be disposed of with a direction to the first appellate Court to decide I.A.No.253 of 2024 along with CMA.No.lO of 2022 on its own merits. Since it is contended that suit is of the ::4.. year, 2O2O. the first appellate Court sha-ll make an endeavour to dispose of the I.A.No.253 of 2024 a:nd CMA.No.1O <tf 2022 as expeditiously AS possibie, preferably r.vitl-rin a period of six (06) months. In view of the fact that the plaintiff has been enjoying tl-ie statLs quo througl-ror-rt pendency of suit before the trial Court and appeal bclore the first Appellate Court, status quo shall continue till disposal of the CMA.No. 10 of 2022.

9. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly,, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a secluel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/- T.TIRUMALA DEVI EPIJTY REGISTRAR a\ I SECTION OFFICER To '1 . The V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at lbrahimpatnam 3. One CC to SRl. SUJITH JAISWAL, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI R SUSHANTH REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies ' 'liilh N HIGH COURT DATED:20102t2025 ORDER CRP.No.2542 of 2024 g STAr6 (,l ( 04 i.,. ?fl6 \ ,| l)ISN4ISISNG-l'HL ('l\/ll ItLVISION PIITI'IION !. 1IHoI I COSTS @r { j tt' ,?.f) L I