Important Point—Temporary injunction cannot be granted casually.

1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, is filed by respondents 2, 3, 5 to 7 in O.S. No.1 of 2012 challenging the order dated 30.07.2012 in I.A. No.743 of 2012 in O.S. No.1 of 2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal'), Hyderabad.

2. Initially, the plaintiffs, who are the respondents 1 to 3 herein, filed suit against the defendants 1 to 8, who are the petitioners and respondents 4 to 6 herein, defendant No.9, who is the respondent No.7 herein, was impleaded by order dated 08.08.2012 in I.A. No.688 of 2012 and defendant No.10, who is respondent No.7 herein, was impeladed by order dated 15.05.2013 in I.A. No.1038 of 2012, to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, attorneys, assignees and all persons claiming through them from interfering, in any manner whatsoever, with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule "A to E" lands bearing Sy.No.120 to an extent of Ac.2.06 cents, Sy.No.124/A to an extent of Ac.4.30 cents and Sy.No.126/1 to an extent of Ac.0.78 cents and Sy.No.126/2 to an extent of Ac.0.47 cents and Sy.No.126/3 to an extent of Ac.0.71 cents of Fazulbaigpet Village, Mandal & District Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, which is more particularly described in the schedule annexed to the plaint, making certain allegations.

3. While the matter stood thus, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed I.A. No.743 of 2012 under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for grant of temporary injunction restraining the Sub-Registrar-1, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, who is the proposed respondent by the date of filing the petition, from registering any document pertaining to the schedule property.

4. The basis for filing the petition under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of CPC is that the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed suit for the relief stated above along with I.A.No.1 of 2012 for grant of temporary injunction and obtained ad interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein and other defendants before the Tribunal and the same was served on the petitioners and other defendants. Despite granting ad interim injunction, the petitioners herein attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, which is wakf property. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed I.A. No.84 of 2012 in I.A. No.1 of 2012 seeking specific direction from the Tribunal to provide necessary police aid for the implementation of the orders passed by the Tribunal in I.A. No.1 of 2012. By order dated 07.02.2012, the Tribunal directed the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Srikakulam District, for implementation of the ad interim injunction passed in I.A. No.1 of 2012. As the matter stood thus, Tahasildar Srikakulam Mandal, filed counter affidavit in W.P. No.2878 of 2012. On the strength of the same, the petitioners came to know that respondents 13 and 14 in the said writ petition viz., Gedula Septarajulu and Gedula Bhaskara Reddy, misrepresented the facts and obtained pattadar pass book and title deeds for the land to an extent of Ac.2. 06 cents in Sy.No.120 and they were being cancelled by exercising power under Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act and Rules. Despite sworn statement in the averments in the counter affidavit for the action being taken, no steps were taken to cancel pattadar pass books/ title deeds issued in favour of the said Gedula Septharajulu and Gedula Bhaskara Reddy. However, a news item was published in 'Sakshi 24/7' daily newspaper, circulated in Srikakulam on 22.07.2012 at page 10 along with the photograph of the Sub-Registrar, the petitioners came to know that the Sub-Registrar has registered Ac.1.03 cents in Sy. No.120 of Fazulbaigpet Village, stealthily after 10.00 p.m. on 21.07.2012. It is also disclosed from the news item that thou