ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Ramapachodavaram in I.A. No. 25 of 2016 in O.S. No. 32/2016 dated 26.10.2016 wherein and whereby Court below vacated temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner.

2. The revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 32 of 2016 before Agency Court seeking declaration that he is Owner and possessor of plaint scheduled property which is agricultural land consisting of two items and also sought for permanent injunction against respondents wherein he filed I.A. No. 25 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction.

3. The petitioners submits that at the first instance on 08.09.2016 Court below granted temporary injunction in his favour and posted the case for issuance of notice to the respondents on 16.10.2016

4. The Petitioner alleged that in the meanwhile Court below taken up the matter on 05.10.2016 itself, without notice to him and kept interim injunction orders in abeyance. Against which petitioner preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 6424 of 2016, which he has withdrawn in view of orders passed by the Court below dated 26.10.2016 in interim injunction petition filed by him.

5. It is contents to the petitioner that he is in possession and enjoyment of the petition scheduled property and Court below without following the procedure and in violation of principles of natural justice taken up the matter before the date of hearing kept the interim injunction orders abeyance and ultimately passed an order vacating the temporary injunction without assigning any reasons and not considered the documents filed by him.

6. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for revision petitioner Mr. A. Srinath, would submits that orders impugned are violative of principles of natural justice and there is no discussion with regard to the documents filed by petitioner due to that orders passed by Court below are liable to be set aside.

7. The learned counsel Mr. Babuji Thenneti, representing Mr. P.V. Krishnama Chary, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, would submits that Court below after considering report of Tahsildhar passed orders vacating the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner. He would further submits that they have no objection for directing the Court below to dispose of the matter afresh after hearing both sides.

8. Now, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is: whether the orders under challenge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. The Court below i.e. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Rampachodavaram, presided by revenue official discharging as a quasi-judicial Authority passed following order in I.A. No. 25 of 2016 in O.S. No. 32 of 2016 which reads as under:

“The temporary injunction orders issued in I.A. No. 25 of 2016 in O.S. No. 32/2016, dated 08.09.2016 are kept in abeyance until further orders.

The Tahsildar, Yetapaka (M) is requested to furnish the factual report on this case immediately. Posted for hearing on 13.10.2016.”

10. It is not in dispute that when suit is filed by the petitioner along with a petition seeking interim injunction which was ordered by the Court below on 08.09.2016. It is also not in dispute that when matter was posted to 16.10.2016 before that day it was taken up on 05.10.2016 and passed orders that “heard the suit and the orders in I.A. are kept in abeyance and to obtain factual report from the Tahsildar posted to 13.10.2016.” Then matter was posted to 09.11.2016 on which date both counsels were said to be present and filing written statement posted to 30.11.2016 and thereafter matter was adjourned to 27.12.2016, but in the meanwhile reasons best known to Court below passed order on 26.10.2016 which prima facie reflects that matter has been taken up before the date of the hearing without notice to both s