K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.98 of 2025 in O.S.No.19 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge,( Junior Division), Kovvur, West Godavari (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S No.19 of 2025. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant, his men, agents and whoever acts on his behalf from ever interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs. The Suit was filed before the trail Court on 24.01.2025 along with I.A. No.98 of 2025 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC praying to grant ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The plaintiffs in their affidavit, clearly stated that, the defendant, without having any right, tried to dispossess their men in the plaint schedule properties, thereby interfering with peaceful possession. The said I.A was heard on 28.01.2025 and the trial Court has passed the following order:

“Heard the petitioner counsel. Issue urgent notice to respondent TC & RP on process. Call on 27.02.2025”

3. On a perusal of the above, it is observed that, when the suit was filed on 24.01.2025 it is not clear under what circumstances the matter was heard on 28.01.2025. Now the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2025 in ordering Urgent notice to the respondent.

4. Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners . Perused the material on record.

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lower Court ought to have considered the urgency in the matter and that there is threat of dispossession of the petitioners from the suit schedule property.

It is pertinent to mention here Order 39 Rule 1 CPC is as follows. 1.Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.-Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-

(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors, (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

6. The above referred provision enables the Court to grant temporary injunction even without issuing notice to the respondents. The above provision has been made with an intention to preserve the property as it is. When any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors or where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may grant a temporary injunction. Of course, the plaintiffs have to establish prima faci