SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J.
Vaitla Rama Murthy and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Marisetty Satyanarayana – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.755 of 2025
Decided on 28.3.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: A.K. Kishore Reddy Y.

IMPORTANT POINT
Injunction – It becomes duty of Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not – When a prima facie case is made out, Courts must grant temporary injunction.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 – Suit seeking grant of ad-interim injunction pending disposal of suit – It becomes duty of Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not – Courts should go through averments made by the party in supporting affidavit and also pleadings and documents filed in support of case of plaintiffs – When a prima facie case is made out, Courts must grant temporary injunction and see that plaintiff is not dispossessed in meanwhile – Even whereCourt is not inclined to grant temporary injunction or decides to issue urgent notice in that case also Court should issue urgent notice and post the matter to a shortest date – When there is urgency in the matter attitude of Courts in posting the matter to a longer date, defeat purpose of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)

Result:Civil Revision Petition disposed of with observation.

ORDER

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

2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit inn 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 facie case. It becomes the duty of the Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not.

7. The Courts should go through the averments made by the party in the supporting affidavit and also the pleadings and documents filed in support of the case of the plaintiffs. When

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top