Pennada Ramakrishna v. Alla Venkateswara Rao And Another

[ 3258 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU C.R.P.Nos: 2397 and 2847 of 2022 Civil Revision Petition No.2397 of 2022 Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, against the Order in l.A.No.271 of 2022 in l.A.No.91 o'f 2022 in O.S.No.114 ol 2022 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, at Bhadrachalam.

Between:

Pennada Ramakrishna, S/o Pennada Naganna, Aged about 4'l Agriculture, Ri/o H.No.1-23, Vardula Maddikonda, Jammigudem A-hwaraopet Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. years, Village, (Leave granted as per Court Order dated 24-11-2022 in I.A.No.'l of 2022) ...PETITIONER AND

1. Alla Venkateswara Rao, S/o Apparao, Aged about 70 years, Agriculture, Ryo H.No.1-123, Jammigudem Village, Ashwaraopet llandql, e.I.r9rq9-l Kothagudem District. - ..Petitloner/Plaintiff

2. Datla Madhu, S/o Ramakrishna, Aged about 35 years, Agriculture, Fyo Mustibanda Village, Dammapet Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IA NO 20F 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 Suspend the operation of the Order dated 29-04-2022 in lANo.91 of 2022 in o.s.tto.tt+ ot 2022 on the file of the sub-Divisional Magistrate & special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, pending disposal of the above CRP.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONDAPARTHI SRINIVASA Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Mr. S. SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. MANTHA RAJENDRA Civil Revision Petition No.2847 ol 2022 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order in l.A.No.9'l of 2022 in O.S.No.114 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the SubDivisional [vlagistrate & special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile court, at Bhadrachalam.

Between:

Pennada Ramakrishna, Q{o Pennada Naganna, Aged about 41 years, Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-23,. Vardula Maddikonda, -Jammigudem V1ilage, Ashwaraopet [Vandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ...PETITIONERYTHIRD PARTY AND

1. Alla Venkateswara Rao, S/o Apparao, Aged about 70 years, Agriculture, R/o H No.'l -123, Jammigudem Village, Ashwaraopet - Manda'i, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

...petitioner/plaintiff

2. Datla Madhu, S/o Ramakrishna, Aged about 35 years, Agriculture, R/o Mustibanda Village, Dammapet Mandal, Bhadradri KothagudeniDistrict.' ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under section '1 51 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 operation of the order daled 29-04-2022 in lA.No.91 of 2022 in o.s.No.114 of 2022 on the file of the sub-Divisional Magistrate & Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile court at Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, pending disposal of the above CRp. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt KONDAPARTHI SRINIVASA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. S. SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. MANTHA RAJENDRA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU c.R.P.NO.2 97 of 2022 AND c.R.P.NO.2847 0F 2022

JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the orders of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Badrachalam in IA.No.91 of 2022 and IA.No.27l of 2022 in OS.No.114 of 2022, the petitioner who is a third party to the above referred suit and proceedings filed two separate revision petitions under Article 227 of Constitution of India and sought for setting aside the impugned orders.

2.

As could be seen from the material papers filed by the revision petitioner, it appears that one Alla Venkateswara Rao, who is shown as second respondent in the present revisions, filed a suit vide OS.No.LL4 of 2022 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government and sought for a perpetual injunction to restrain one Datla Madhu, who is shown as second respondent herein and his servants, henchmen from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of first respondent over the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, he has filed IA.No.91

ffi\ ,:r \ SSRN,] cRP.No.2397 0f 2022 And CRP.No 2847 of 2022 of 2022 under Order 39 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.') r/w a2(C) of A.P. Agency Rules, 1924, and sought for a temporary injunction to restrain the second respondent, his supporters etc., from interfering with plaint schedule property i.e., Ac.12-00 gts of land in Sy.No.51/1 and Ac.03-00 gts of land in Sy.No.16/EEl1 of Jammigudem Revenue Village. The record further shows that when the second respondent herein remained ex parte, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order in favour of the first respondent restraining respondent No.2 from interfering with the alleged possession of respondent No.1 over the above referred property.

3.

The record further shows that the first respondent filed another Interlocutory Application vide IA.No.277 of 2022 under Order 42 (a & c) A.P./f.S. Agency Rules, 1924 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., A.P. Agency Rules, 1924 and sought for a direction to the Station House Officer, Aswarao Peta Police Station to provide protection in favour of the first respondent to restrain the second respondent and their agents, servants from interfering with his possession. Even though, there is no mention about the name of the revision petitioner herein in the affidavit filed in support of the above petitions, surprisingly, the learned Sub-Division Magistrate

:- r."-V ,P'

SSRN,] CRP No 2397 of 2022 And CRP.No.2847 of 2022 passed an order in IA.No.271 of 2022 directing the S.H.O. Aswarao Peta to provide protection to the first respondent against the petitioner herein.

4.

The petitioner who filed the above referred revision petitions has claimed that when the first respondent filed a sult for perpetual injunction against the second respondent and an interlocutory application for temporary injunction against the second respondent without impleading the petitioner herein as a party to the proceedings, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate ought to have seen that the petitioner herein was not a party either in the Interlocutory Application filed for interim injunction or in the suit filed by the first respondent. The flrst respondent without showing the present petitioner as a party deliberately made the second respondent as a sole defendant in the suit though respondent No.2 was not an interested party in the property covered in the suit, The record clearly shows that respondent No.

2 having received the summons did not choose to contest the Interlocutory Application.

r. ,. -l SSRN,J CRP No 2397 of 2022 And CRP.No.2847 of 2022 protection against the petitioner. It is also the case of petitioner that the second respondent is not an interested party but an injunction was granted without showing the petitioner herein, thereby, sought for setting aside the impugned orders. 5.

Heard both parties.

6.

Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by which a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the second respondent and a direction to the S.H.O. Aswarao Peta providing police protection against the revision petitioner are liable to be set asid e?

l.

As could be seen from the impugned orders, it is very clear that the first respondent herein filed the main suit against the second respondent with a specific plea that respondent No.2 was trying to interfere with his property. The record shows that the second respondent who was served with the summons and notices did not appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. As per the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in IA.No.91 of 2022, it is quite clear that simply because the second respondent did not choose to appear before him, he has passed an injunction order without explaining the grounds under which an interim injunction can be granted, though the 1't respondent was not able to make out a prima-facie case and balance of , I

--7 ?

SSRN,] CRP No.2397 o12022 And CRP No.2847 o12022 convenience to obtain an interim order. Except saying that the Court felt that the first respondent is entitled to an injunction on the basis of material documents, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not try to find out whether the first respondent was able to make out a prima-facie case and whether the denial of injunction would cause irreparable loss.

B. Similarly, the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in IA.No.271 of 2022 shows that simply because there was a temporary injunction in favour of the second respondent which was passed in view of the absence of respondent, who was shown to have made an attempt to interfere with the property, a direction was given to the S.H.O. Aswarao peta to provide police Protection by mentioning the name of petitioner herein as friend of the first respondent, thereby, it was deemed that he was a henchmen. Absolutely, there was no reason explained by the SubDivisional Magistrate as to how such an order can be passed without showing the petitioner herein as a party to the proceedings and without verifying whether the petitioner herein has got any interest over the property.

9. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that the first respondent having shown an unconcerned person as a

i.

i S5RN,I CRP.No.2397 of 2022 And CRP.No 2847 o12022 respondent/defendant in OS.No.114 of 2022 and having filed a petition vide IA.No.91 of 2022 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. could obtain an ex parte temporary injunction and based on the said injunction, he has moved another Interlocutory Application seeking Police Protection for implementing the ex parte temporary injunction and was successful in obtaining Police Protection Order against the present petitioner. Absolutely, there was no reason given by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate while passing a temporary injunction and the order In IA.No.271 of 2022 is not justified since it is against the petitioner, who is no way concerned with the sult and other proceedings initiated by the first respondent herein.

Police Protection was ordered based on a temporary injunction by showing the petitioner herein is a friend of the second respondent who himself did not choose to contest the suit. Therefore, it clearly shows that there was collusion between respondents No.1 and 2 to have an injunction based on which the first respondent could obtain Police Protection, thereby, both the orders are liable to be set aside. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate can decide I.A.No.

P SSRN,] CRP.No.2397 of 2022 Anrl CRP -No-2847 o( 2022 injunction against an unconcerned person, Therefore, revision petitions deserves to be allowed.

10. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugnecj orders in IA.No.91 of 2022 and IA.No.271 of 2022 in OS.No. ll4 of 2022 are set aside. Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.

SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR It_ sEcTtoNJoFFtcER To //TRUE COPY// 1' The Sub-Divisionar Magistrate & Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, at Bhadrachalam.

2. One CC to SRI KONDAPARTHT SR|N|VASA, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Mr. S. SR|DHAR, Advocate tOpUCI

4. One CC to Mr. MANTHA RAJENDRA, Advocate tOpUCI

5. Two CD Copies kam A^X

HIGH COURT DATED:1711112023 /< 1t\g 5T11)'6 q $23 14 0Eg loo O .b at i oEs pr.J ck\t -]

JUDGMENT

CRP.No.2397 of 2022 AND GRP.No.2847 of 2022 THESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS ARE ALLOWED T2} '4srx