T.Mallikarjuna Reddy v. P.Venkataramanamma

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4864 of 2014 ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner/1st defendant is directed against the order dated 26.08.2014 of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni passed in C.M.A.No.7 of 2014, whereby, the learned Additional District Judge, while dismissing the said CMA, had confirmed the decree and the decreetal order dated 25.04.2014 [04.06.2012] of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Adoni passed in I.A.No.502 of 2010 in O.S.No.128 of 2010 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's/1st respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of three items of immovable property, which are morefully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint and the petition.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. There is no representation for the first respondent/plaintiff. I have perused the material record. The other respondent is the 2nd defendant in the suit.

3. At the enquiry before the trial Court, exhibits P1 to P12 and exhibits R1 to R15 were marked; and, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. On merits, the trial Court granted injunction against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. The Court below, while dismissing the CMA filed by the 1st defendant, had confirmed the orders of the trial Court. Aggrieved of the said orders, the first defendant is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that though the plaintiff had failed to prove the necessary requirements for grant of a temporary injunction, the trial Court had erroneously granted temporary injunction in her favour and that the trial Court, having once closed the

petition for injunction, had erred in deciding the said petition again on merits when the trial is in progress and that therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. The trial Court, while arriving at a conclusion that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is in her favour, had considered the facts correctly and the documentary evidence in proper perspective and had then granted the injunction orders on merits. A perusal of the order of the trial Court shows that after considering the exhibits in 'P' and 'R' series in juxtaposition, the trial Court had recorded its satisfaction that the documents of the plaintiffs, which established a prima facie case, can be given due weight at the interlocutory stage, as the documents in exhibit 'R' series are found to be not sufficient to dislodge the said prima facie case. The Court below had confirmed the well considered orders of the trial Court by passing a reasoned order. On a perusal of the orders of the Courts below this Court finds no reason calling for interference. Viewed thus, this Court finds that there is no jurisdictional error in the order impugned by which the order of the trial Court was confirmed.

6.

However, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner/ first defendant, had fairly submitted that the suit is at the stage of trial and, therefore, in case this revision petition is dismissed, a direction may be given to the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, on merits and independently, uninfluenced by the observations, if any, in the interlocutory orders.

7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that the trial Court shall decide the suit on merits and uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made in the interlocutory orders. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

______________________ M.Seetharama Murti, J 26th February, 2016 Bvv