ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal vide CMA No. 6 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff while the respondents are the defendants in the suit vide O.S.No.62 of 2022.

3. The petitioner filed O.S.No.62 of 2022 for permanent injunction and in the said suit he filed petition vide I.A.No.152 of 2022 seeking the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents and their men restraining them in any way from making further construction on F, F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 and F7 on the plaint schedule land, pending disposal of the suit. The respondents resisted the relief by filing counter contending that they never trespassed into the site of the petitioner and in fact the petitioner got his house measured and stated that his place was secured and the petitioner who himself had encroached the site of the respondents on the northern side of their house at about three (03) feet width and 30 feet length, filed the suit with false averments and that the petition filed seeking two reliefs is not maintainable. The learned trial Judge, upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record, allowed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred CMA and the learned Appellate Judge allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal thereby setting aside the temporary injunction granted by the learned trial Judge. The order passed in the CMA has been challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri Naganjaneyulu Borra, learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff and Sri Krishna Rao Paritala, learned counsel for respondents/defendants.

5. Sri Naganjaneyulu Borra, learned counsel for petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court and grounds of Civil Revision petition would contend that though the documents were not marked, the learned trial Judge made elaborate discussion of the contents of the documents in the order and had rightly came to the conclusion in granting temporary injunction. He would further contend that the interlocutory petition was filed under order-XXXIX, Rules-1 and 2 CPC through which except the relief for interim injunction, no other reliefs could either be sought or granted and the learned trial Judge having considered the submission that instead of temporary injunction, the permanent and mandatory injunction was mentioned in copy and paste process and the learned trial Judge, upon appreciation of the facts and the law under which the petition was filed and prosecuted, upon ignoring the typographical error, had rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of temporary injunction. He would further contend that the appellate Judge upon irrelevant and hyper technicalities rather than on merits of the matter and material available on record allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, completely ignoring the fundamental principle of law that technicalities should never be allowed to impede the advancement of substantial justice. He would further contend that the order of the appellate Judge is perverse and the same has to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, Sri Krishna Rao Paritala, learned counsel for respondents, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court and grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed before the Appellate Court would contend that the learned trial Judge upon erroneous view of the matter in disregard to the fact that the petitioner did not even seek the relief of temporary injunction and even without marking the documents and evaluating their evidentiary value, allowed the petitioner granting temporary injunction, which was never sought. He would further contend that the learned Appellate Judge upon meticul