A third party must qualify as an aggrieved person to challenge an order of injunction in a suit where they are not a party, emphasizing available statutory appeal remedies.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri Pamarthy Rathnakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. This civil revision petition (S.R.) has been filed by the petitioner/third party, challenging the order of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.') in IA No.345 of 2023 in OS No.67 of 2023 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, on 15.03.2023.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, 1st respondent herein against the defendant, the 2nd respondent-Gudivada Municipality. The petitioner is not party in the said suit. The petitioner's case is that the plaintiff/1st respondent made encroachment in front of the petitioner's house, with respect to which the proceedings were initiated by the 2nd respondent-Gudivada Municipality by issuing notice under Section 192 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'). But inspite of the notice, the further proceedings were not being taken. So, the petitioner filed WP No.24395 of 2023, which was disposed of by order dated 27.02.2024, directing the Commissioner of the said Municipality to initiate necessary action, strictly in accordance with law, pursuant to the notice dated 07.03.2023 under Section 192 of the Act, if no interim order was passed by the Civil Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid OS No.67 of 2023, there was interim order dated 15.03.2023 but the same was not been brought to the notice of the Court. He submits that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the said interim order, after the petitioner filed CC No.2389 of 2024 against the 5th respondent-Commissioner, for disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court, as no further action was taken and in the said case, the defence of the interim order was taken. Consequently, the petitioner is filing the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 15.03.2023, granting temporary injunction in favour of the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent.

5. Office has raised an objection with respect to the entertainability of the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that such an order is appealable before the District Court.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the office objection deserves to be rejected. He submits that the petitioner being third party can maintain C.R.P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance in the case of H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar , Civil Appeal Nos.1180-1181 of 2025, dated 29.01.2025, reported in 2025 INSC 121, of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Referring to Para 33 of the said judgment, he submits that a person aggrieved from a judgment and decree, which prejudicially affect the rights of a person, who is not party in the suit, with a leave of the Court such person can challenge that order/decree.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

8. In H. Anjanappa's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held as under in Para 43 :

"43. The principles governing the grant of leave to appeal may be summarised as under :

(i) Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC respectively provide for preferring an appeal from an original decree or decree in appeal respectively;

(ii) The said provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal;

(iii) However, it a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in an