The High Court · 2025

Smt.Vattipalli Mangamma, Wo.Narasaiah, D/o.Maila Somaiah, a_ged about 38 years, Oic.Houseriife, R/o.H.No.4-83, Singarajupally, Warrangal Diskict. ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plai ntiff AND 1 2 3 Maila Somaiah, S/o.Agaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Nelapogula village, Lingala Ghanpur lvlandal, Jangoan District Iv'laila Ramakka, W/o.Somaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.Nelapogula village, Lingala Ghanpur lvlandal, Jangoan District Cherabuddi Anil Kumar, S/o.Late Yadagiri Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ.Business, Rl/o.5-gT,Nelapogula village, Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, Jangoan District. ( ln the court below Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not necessary parties) ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 'f OF 2024 Petition under Order 39 rules 1& 2 r/w 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 grant ad-interim injunction restraining.the respondent No.3 herein, his agents, henchmen, followers, any person or persons claiming through him from raising any sort of construction or alienating or otherwise encumbering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner/plaintiff over the petition schedule properties in lANo.431 of 2024in os No.29 of 2o24on thefile of senior Civil Judge at Jangoan, pending disposal of CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHD ABDUL ISMAIL ZABEULLAH Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI BONDEMPALLY RAMULU The Court made the following: ORDER 3 HOI.I'BLE MRS, JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION 0.3968 0F 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri Mohd.Abdul Ismail Zabeullah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Bondempally Ramulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The CiVil Revision Petiti i!eg! seekinq Draver as u n-dCri "...tc allow the CRP by setting aside the crd,:r dt 21. 70.202 passed in IA No. 43t of 2024 in OS No, 29 of 2024 on the f le of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Jargaon and pass. . , ' PERUSED TI.IE RECORD:-

3. This ci,,ril Revision Petition is preferred against the docket order dated 2L.LO.2O24 in IA No.43l of 20,24 in OS No. 29 ol 2Qt2,4 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Iudge at Jangaon whereunder the court after perusing the record ordered urgent notice to the Respondents No.3/ Defendant No.3 on the petition filed by the plaintiff under 4 , order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC geeking grant of temPorary injunction against the R.espondent No.3/ Defendant No 3'

4. As can be seen from the petition IA No,431 ot 2024 in OS No. 29 ol 2024 the plea of the Petitioner/Plaintiff is that the respondents 1 and 2 are her parents and the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and OS No' 7t ol 2OL2 was filed for partition of the properties and the said suit was disposed off by the court of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon and she had 1/5th of the share in the properties and that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sold the suit property under an agreement of sale to Respondent No.3 who filed the OS No. 2OO of 2OL2 Jor specific performance of the Agreement of Sale and the suit was decreed and sale deed 3O.O9.2024 was executed through process of the court but possession of the property was not delivered to Respondent No 3 and that the sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No'3 is null and void and not binding on her and that therefore she is entitled for grant of temporary iniunction against the Respondent No.3 for making construction on the land and from alienating the land to others. \ I 5 5, The lo,,ryer court as can be seen from the impugned docket order after perusing the record ordered urgent notice to thrr: respondent. As per order 39 Rule 1, clauses .a, to .c, deal with the cases in which court may grant ta-po."ry injun<;tion. But as per sub-rule .3, of order 39 issuance of the notace to the respondent before grant of injunction in all cases is mandatory ,rnless the court is of the opinion that the object of granting injunction would be ctefeated on account of dsl6y by issuance of notice to the opposite party. D scusSIOt\r AN DCO NCL SION:- I \ 6 In the present case the lower court after per ursing the record ordered urgent notice to the respondent which inferentialry shows that the court fert that the case of the petitioner/plaintiff did not deserve grant of ,d-interim injunction, therefore the lower court dad not com mit any illegality or procedural irregularity tn passing the order. Apart from this, the impugnecl order, ordering the notice to the respondent without gJrant of temporary injiup6l;6n is appealabte under order XLIIII Rute 1 crause (r) cpc and so the petitioner ought to have impugned \ I 6 preferred civil miscellaneous appeal to the district court instead of rushing this court by way of present CRP' The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner do not apply to the facts of the present- case' For the following reasons the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, lI shall stand closed. A I Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY zGISTRAR sec,& orrrcen I To, One Fair Cop,y to the Hon'ble Mrs Justice Surepalli Nanda (For Her Lordship,s kind perusal) '

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon 2. 1 '1 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

4. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

5. One CC to SRI MOHD ABDUL tSMAtL ZABEULLAH, Advocate [OpUC] 6. One CC to SRI BONDEMPALLY RAMULU, Advocate [OpUC] 7. Two CD Copies ADK,/i<am \ ! I I r i HIGH COUIIT DATED:01 10512025 ORDER CRP.No.39ti8 of 2024 t o 1 4L .$ s* \ t,". ir'-' i"- '..r... '1.: '.1 ri ^ ", .(' ; * ). 72' \ 9 I ,i DISMISSINIS THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS t4