Thogiti Srinivas v. S. Harshavardhan Reddy
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
[ 3431 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 607 OF 2024 Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the Order dated 15. 10 2024 made in l. A. No. 265 of 2024 in O. S. No. 36 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Learned llAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Medhal- Malkajgiri, at Medchal' Between:
1. THOGITI SRINIVAS, S/o. T. Shanker Chary, Aged 51 years' Occ: Business' Rto.7- 2- 849, Mankamma Thota, Karimnagar, Telangana State.
2. ALLAM JAYA PRATAP REDDY, S/o. Allam Prakash Reddy' Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 2- 10-1752, Chaintanyapuri, Karimnagar, Telangana.
...APPELLANTS/PETITIONER PLAINTIFFS AND '1 S HARSHAVARDHAN REDDY, S/o. Madhava Reddy, Aged about62 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 2- 44, Goudelli Village, Medchal Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District - 500014.
2. S HARIVARDHAN REDDY, S/o. Madhava Reddy, Aged about 58 Years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 2- 44, Goudelli Village, Medchal Mandal' MedchalMalkajgiri District - 500014. 3 D NAGESHWAR RAO, S/o. Late Narasimha Rao, Aged 47 Years, Occ Personal Assistant to Defendant No. 2, R/o. H. No. 6- 2811, Vennal Gadda, Suchitra Mandal, Medchal- Malkaigiri District - 500014.
4. GILLELLA ANURADHA, Wo. G. Subhash Reddy, Aged about 50 Years, Occ Housewife, R/o. Goudelli Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District - 500014 ...RESPONDENTS/DEFEN DANTS
lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Order XXXIX' Rule 17 2Rlw Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in'ii.,l" 'ffiO'u't filed h supoort of the petition' the High court may be pteased r" 'oiieNli nd-'ir.rrEnrrt/l iEMPORARY INJUNCTIoN ORDERS restraining tne' Alsponaents/Defendants their agents' henchmen' followers, any person o, o"i."oT."'.L]nrrg thi"rgn him from interfering with the peaceful possession'"0' ""f"Vrn""| "i"10n"9ry]Plaintiffs over the Petition Schedule Property penorng ;i#;'i of the Appeal and pass such other and further order or orders as "r" 0""*li'r-iirnJ prop"i in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice Counsel for the Appellants : Mr' Sujith Jaiswal Counsel for the ResPondents : ' "
I The Court delivered the following:
I
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESITWAR RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.607 of2024 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sn Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.Sujith Jaiswal, leamed counsel for the appellant. Perused the material available on record.
2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant under order 43 Rule I of code of civil Procedure assailing the order, dated 15.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.265 of 2024 in O.S.No.36 of 2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal (for short'the tria[ court').
3. The suit substantivcly is a suit lor grant of perpetual injunction against the respondents. [n the suit t.A.No.265 of 2024 has been filed seeking lor temporary injunction under Order XXXX Rule 1 and 2. The nature of temporary injunction was seeking for an order of restrain against the respondenrs from intcrl-ering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit is in respect of A & B Schedule propeny.
4. According to the petitioner the dispute with the defendants arose when the petitioner tricd to crect tcncing around his property which he has
) purchased from the defendants vide registered sale deed. The contention of \ the petitioner is that the sale deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintifflpetitioner is not in dispute. The title of the petitioner over the said suit schedule property is again not in dispute. However, still the respondents are interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners when they try to erect a fence on the suit schedule property.
5. However, what is culled out from the submissions made by the petitioners is that, in the recent past, the petitioners had t'iled a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana vide W.P.No.5544 of 2023 which got disposed of on27.02.2023 with a direction to the Revenue Authorities to carry out the survey of the property which belongs to the petitioners. The substantive prayer in the writ petition was also for conducting ofa survey of their self acquired property. The said order till date has not been complied with. The Revenue Authorities har,e ir.rfbmred the plaintifflpetitioners there is inability in carrying out lhe surr cy. No steps further have been taken by ,'r '];g I - the pe$t;llf-tr for the compliance ol- rhe wrir courts order so far as survey is concerne4.
ween, the suit was tited, seeking lor perpetual injunction. In the etitioner had sought for a temporary injunction restraining the interfering u.ith the said property. It is this application i i irli,lii for te ction which has norv been decided by the trial court , )i!!t;!
enge in.the prescnt (iir il \liscellaneous Appeal whi
J
6. Learned trial court in the course ofdeciding the application has reached to a conclusion that without conducting of the survey of the suit schedule \ proflerty, it will be difficult in permitting the petitioners for carrying out the fencing work as there appears to be some boundary dispute inter se between the petitioners and defendants. Moreover, there is already an order by the writ court so far as conducting of the survey is concemed. Further, the trial court also while disposing of the I.A. for temporary injunction has ordered the petitioners/ptaintiff to get the land survey with the appropriate Revenue Authorities and has further directed the respondents to cooperate with the said survey so as to fix the respective boundaries.
We are therefore of the ,considered opinion that the view taken by the trial court while deciding the application for temporary injunction cannot be found fault with as there appears to be a genuine boundary dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants.
7. Reserving the right of the petitioners for availing the same and then approaching the trial court, the instant civil miscellaneous appeal stands rejected.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- K. SRINIV RAO JOINT REGI TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I I I To, The Learned ll Additional District and Sessions Judge' lvledhal- Malkaigiri' ,i rtr"a"nrr.(With records, if any) A;;;; i; ilit. sujith JaiswalAdvocate [oPUCl DL/g. Two CD CoPies h w
) HIGH COURT DATED:1211212024 I $C S rATA
JUDGMENT
f o 2 4 ttB o5 CMA.No.607 of 2024 i o e ( p o t REJECTING THE C.M.A.
\