1. Kothuri Naresh v. Venna @ Enna Gangadhar

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 to suspend the Order and Decree passed in C.M.A. No 3 ol 2O2O on the file of the Principal District Judge at Jagtial, daled 27 -O2-2023 c.o,;nfirming the order-and decree passed in l.A. No. 58 of 2019 in O S. No. 21 of'2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jagtial, dated 05-02-2020 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. K VENUMADHAV Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI ANNNAMPELLI GANGADHAR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE WSTICE B.R. MADHUSITIDHAN RAO CTVIL REVIS TON PETITION No.28O 2 of 2023 ' ORDER:

1. This Civit Revision petition is filed urder Atticle 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order pa5ssd in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3 of 2O2O d,ated. 27.02.2023 by learned Principal District Judge, Jagtial.

2. Petitioners are the appellants in CMl. No.3 of 2020 and respondents in I.A.No.5g of 2019. Rerpondent here in is the respondent in the CMA and petitioner in I.A.No.58 of 2019.

3. 1 Learned counsel for the petitioners sultrnits that t1.re order under revision is erroneous in law ar: d against the material available on record. Both the tri,rl Court ald appellate Court faiied to look into the principles for granting any injunction or s/atus quo that the person who ever is coming to the Court seeking tlttt said relief 7 .l tsRM R,J CRP,No 2802 of 2023 sha,ll establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, which is likely to be caused to them Though there is a specific finding by the Iearned trial Court that the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff has disputed about the title and possession of the petitioners- appellants-respondents and erroneously granted sfalus quo in their favour.

3.2 Both the trial Court and appellate Court failed to look into and consider that the respondent petitioner- plaintiff claimed the suit plot 1n Sy.No.4i0lC, also claimed that his father has purchased land admeasuring 281 Square Yards in Sy.No.4lOlC and after the death of his father and his brother, he got 140.50 Square yards. $ Br-rt, erroneously granted slalus quo and prayed to set aside the order passed in CMA No.3 of 2O2O dated

27.O2.2O23 by the learned Principal District Judge at Jagtial in conhrming the order passed in I.A.No.58 of BRMR.I CRI' No.28O2 of 2023 3 2019 dated O5.O2.2O2O by the learned l,rincipal Junior Civil Judge at Jagtial in O.S.No.2l of 20llt.

4. Learned counsel for the respondert submits that the petitioners have admitted before tL e learned trial Court for maintaining sla/us quo, therefore, the appellate Court has rightly dismissed the CMA and rro interference is called for.

5. The respondent-plaintiff has file I suit unde r Section 26 and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., for perpetual injunction against the petitioners-defendar.ts restraining them, his agents and workmen from intel'1,:ring with his peaceful possession and enjoyment o\rEr the suit schedule property i.e., House site plot tt an extent of

140.50 Square Yards in Sy.No.410/C sitrrated at Mothe Village, Jagtial Revenue Mandal and District with specific bor-+pdaries. 4 BRMR,J CRP.No.28O2 of 2023 .l

6. Respondent-petitioner-plaintiff along with suit has filed application for grant of crd inteim injunction vide I.A.No.58 of 2019. The petitioners herein, who are the respondents in the aforesaid I.A. opposed the said application by frling their counter and the learned trial Court vide order dated O5.02.2O2O has disposed of the said application holding that "the ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 31.01.2019 is hereby modihed into an order of status quo and both parties are hereby directed to maintain status quo as on today pending disposal of the suit".

7. The petitioners herein have carried the matter in appeal before the learned Principal District Judge at , Jagital vide CMA.No.3 of 2O2O, which a_lso came to be dismissed on 27.02.2023 holding that the petitioners herein have not made out any case. I t ,/ 5 BRMR,J CRP.No.28O2 ot 2023

8. It is apt to mention here the relevant portion of order of learned trial Court in para No. 12 .,vhich reads as under. "Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture represented across the bat. that the petitioner would not raise any object:on before the electricity authorities for Sanctirtning the electricity connection to the respond:rtts and, at the same time, he requested the Court to protect the interests of the petitionrtr during pendency of the present suit by granting status quo order in his favour. .Learned counsel for the respondents did not oppose the said request of the petitioner,s counsel for granting status quo order.,,

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners .tirs drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.pl copy of sal.e deed dated 02.12.1985, wherein the Survey number ir,srhown as 421 and the extent is shown as 2g1 Sq. yards l,rthout any by number. Counsel further submits that tr<.A1 does not \ !-\ -*1 6 BRMR,J CRP.No.2802 of 2023 contain the by number of the origina_l Survey number i.e., '4LOf C',. lO. As stated supra, in para No.12, of the learned trial Court order that the respondent-petitioner_plaintiff counsel has made representation across the Bar that his party would not raise any objection for sanctioning the electricity connection to the respondents (petitioners herein). At the same time he requested the Court to protect the interest of the respondent-petitioner_plaintiff during the pendency of the present suit by granting slalus quo in his favour. Learned counsel for the respondents therein- petitioners herein did not oppose the said request of the petitioner therein-respondent a herein counsel for granting status quo. .

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners subr4its that the petitioners have obtained electricity connection in respect of the property. In view of the admission made by petitioners before the triat Court to maintain status/quo \/ -/ l BRNlR,J CR'] \o.2 802 of 2023 in respect of the suit scheduled property, th,:rr have not made out an)'case in the C.R.P and the samr' is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. L2. Since the suit is of the year order '2019' this Court is of the view that the suit itself can be dispos:r1 of within time frame. Therefore, learned trial Court is re,truested to disposed of the suit in O.S.No.2l of 20 19, witltin a period of four (4) months, from the date ol receipt of :rlpy of this order, by giving opportunity to both the partie:r

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition ir; dismissed with observation as indicated in the orders. Ihere shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any shall stantI vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// sq/!' DE L. LAKSHMI BABU P JTY REGISTRAR 7(: S.ECTION OFFICER To, p

1. The Principal District Judoe at Jaotial 2. One CC to SRt K VFNUMADHAV Advocate [OpUC] 3 One CC to SRt ANNNAMPELLT GANGADHAiR Advocare IJ,UC] 4. Two CD Copies TPK,/SA HIGH COURT DATED:0611112025 I ORDER CRP.No.2802 of 2023 -s r:.E ST4 14

1. o ( 2 5 r'l0ll ztuli i:i') 'l i 9l T I CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISIUIISSED I \o 5