The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS AND

1. Nara Anil Kumar, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged about. 34 years, Occ. Employee, R/o' H.No.7-74, Near Shiva trr'ledical Shop, Ambedkar Nagar, Chintal, Qutubullapur, Itledchal- Malkajgiri District.

2. R. Prathap Reddy, S/o. R.Narayana Reddy, Aged about. 52 years, Occ' Business, R/o. H.No. 2-56, Turkapally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri.

3. G.Umakath Reddy, S/o. Late. Geedipally Bal Reddy, Aged about 39 years' Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 3-41, Turkapally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

4. G. Venu Gopal Reddy, S/o. G. Chinna Raji Reddy, Aged about. 52 years, Occ. Business , Rlo. 2-97, Turkapally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal- MalkajgiriDistrict.

5. Daram Upendrika. Wo. Late. D.Gopal Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ. House wife, Rlo 2-10111 , Turkapally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, tvledchal- Malkajgiri District ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTSIDEFENDNATNS No. 4 and 5 (Respondent No.1 to 3/ Defendant No.l to 3 is not necessary party in l.A, Since no relief is sought against them) lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respond e nts/defend a nts no.4 and 5 to restrain from creating third party interest which includes leasing/rent, Mortgage of petition schedule property in 1.A.No.2102 of 2021 daledS-2-2022 in 1.A.No.1007 OF 2020 in O.S.No 125of 2020 on the file of the ll Addl Junior Civil Judge-Cum-XXll Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Medchal, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. P. K. Aditya Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR C.R.P. No.2665 of 2O22 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Docket Order, dt.08.O2.2O22 in IA.No.2lO2 of 2O2l in I.A.No.1OO7 of 2O2O tn O.S.No. 125 of 2O2O on the frle of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medical Malkajgiri District at Medchal, in dismissing the underlying interlocutory application(lA) filed under Section 151 of CPC to direct the respondents to bring the 'B' suit schedule property to status quo ante'

2. Heard learned counsel lor the revision petitioners and perused the record.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the above suit. The said suit is filed for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties.

4. The parties hereina-fter will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 2

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after institution of the subject suit, on noticing that the defendant Nos.4 & 5 in order to defeat the suit claim are making construction of a house, they had hled an interlocutory application uzde I.A.No. 1O7Z of 2O2O to restrain the defendant Nos.4 & S from making any construction over the petition schedule property; that the Court below by considering the material on record, b,v order dt.OZ.O1.2O2t had granted interim order directing both the parties to the suit to maintain status quo in respect of the ,8, suit schedule property dll O2.02.2O2i; and that on 02.02.2021, the interim order was extended until further orders.

6. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that as the defendant Nos.4 & .5 violated and disobeyed the aforesaid interim order by undertaking construction of house consisting of Ground + I floor over the petition (lA.No.l077 of 2O2O) schedule property, they had filed an interlocutory application urde I.A.No.394 of 2O2l under Order XXXIX Rule 24 of CpC to punish the defendant Nos.4 & 5. / 3

7. Plaintiffs further contend that since, the defendant Nos.4 & 5 have made construction during the subsistence of stafus quo order in respect of the B' suit schedule property, which was a vacant plot when.the Court below had passed the order, the plaintiffs herein have fi1ed the underlying interlocutory application uide I.A.No.2lO2 of 2021 in IA.No.lO07 of 2O2O seeking to restore the status quo ante and direct the defendant Nos.4 & 5 to demolish the entire structure; and that the Court below had erroneously dismissed the underlying IA on the ground that petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is pending consideration, without appreciating that while the application under Order XXXX Rule 2A CPC is to punish the defendant Nos.4 & 5 for willful disobedience, the underlying application is in relation to demolition of construction made during the subsistence of the status quo order, and l-hus both are different.

8. I have taken note of the submission made.

9. While the plaintiffs contend that the petition liled by them under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC is independent of 4 the underlying IA filed under Section 151 of CpC to direct the defendalt Nos.4 & 5 to demolish the construction of house consisting of Ground +1 floor, so as to restore stafus quo ante confirming the interim order passed in IA.No.lO77 of 2O2O, it is to be noted that as to whether the defendant Nos.4 & 5 had committed a contempt by undertaking construction in violation of the order dt. 02. O2.2O2l in IA.No.1O77 of 2O2O, is subject matter for consideration in IA.No.394 of 2O21. It is only upon the ad.judication of the aforesaid IA by the Court as to whether defendant Nos.4 & 5 had committed willful disobedience or violation of the order of status quo, dt.O2.Ol.2O21, as extencled until further orders on O2.O2.2O21 , can it be said that the defendant Nos.4 & 5 having violated the order by undertaking construction.

10. Though on behall of the plaintiffs it is contended that on the date rvhen the Court below had passed the order of status quo, the same was in respect of a vacant plot and the defendant Nos.4 & 5 having made construction thereafter only, as noted herein above, the sajd fact of construction having been made subsequent to the order of 5 status quois required to be gone into by the Court below in the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC' and it is only thereafter, the plaintiffs can seek for the relief as sought for in the underlYing IA' 1 1. Till such time the petition filed r'rnder Order XXXIX Rule 24. of CPC is adjudicated' no application can be filed claiming that the construction made in the suit schedule property be demolished, so as to restore status quo ante' as that would result in the Court accepting the claim of the plaintiffs of the defendant Nos'4 & 5 having made construction in violation of the status quo order' even before actually deciding the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, which is not permitted' I

12. Further, it is aiways open for the Court below to direct the defendant Nos 4 & 5 to demolish the construction, if found to be made in violation of the order of status quo, while adjudicating the IA filed under Order XXXIX Ruie 2A CPC in order to avoid being punished for I civil contemPt. 6

13. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the order of the Court beiow .in dismissing the underlying interlocutory application on the ground that for the same relief, an application urde I.A.No.394 of 2O2t filed under Order XXXIX Rule 24, CpC ts pending and the plaintiff during enquiry of the said IA is required to produce eyidence to prove that defendant Nos.4 & 5 have violated the slatus quo order, and for the said reason, the underlying application cannot be maintained, does not suffer from an-y error or infirmity for it to be rnterfered with by this Court in the present revision petition. 14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition fails and is cogent 15 Consequently, miscellaneous pending shall stand closed. petitions, if any, SD/. T TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// -r )l' l\ i( \di,. l''t" SECTION OFFICER \ To, '1 . The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-XXll Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Medchal.

2. One CC to Sri M. P. K. Aditya, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies \TtIi PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2AA2|2A25 1 rrE S 14, ( J. '( J 2 3 llAY 2[25 1I o A i Es P,ATC\1rl ,