IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Procedural laws must facilitate justice, allowing parties to participate in legal processes, and should not be construed to deny such participation.

ORDER :

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2024 in I.A. No. 335 of 2023 in I.A. No. 66 of 2022 in O.S. No. 80 of 2022 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Devarakonda (for short ‘Trial Court’).

2. The petitioners herein are the petitioners in the interlocutory application and defendants in the suit filed for perpetual injunction. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

4. Along with the suit the respondent herein had filed an interlocutory application numbered as I.A. No. 66 of 2022 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the ‘Code’). On hearing the application, the Trial Court vide order dated 21.02.2022 had granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the respondent’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition scheduled property till filing of the counter. The said ex-parte ad-interim injunction was extended from time to time thereafter.

5. The respondent herein thereafter filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 335 of 2023 under Section 151 of the Code, seeking police protection for implementation of the order dated 21.02.2022. The Trial Court on observing that the respondent herein had lodged a complaint numbered as F.I.R. No. 45 of 2023 before Gudipally Police Station, and noting its’ prima facie satisfaction that the petitioners herein were violating the order dated 21.02.2022 by interfering with the respondent’s possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property, allowed the underlying application.

6. The present revision is filed aggrieved by the same.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing the attention of this Court to material filed along with the present revision contends that the finding of the Trial Court while allowing the underlying I.A. that these petitioners have failed to file their Written Statement is factually incorrect.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that as these petitioners were set ex-parte by the Trial Court in I.A. No. 66 of 2022, they had filed an interlocutory application numbered as I.A. No. 477 of 2023 under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code seeking to set-aside the same; that the finding of the Trial Court that the petitioners had not filed their counter in the underlying application was erroneous as they could not have filed their counter when they were set ex-parte and thus, the Trial Court had erred in deciding the underlying application when I.A. No. 477 of 2023 was still pending adjudication.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioners herein have not challenged the order dated 21.02.2022 passed in I.A. No. 66 of 2024 granting ad interim injunction, till date, and thus, the petitioners having accepted the said order could not challenge the impugned order which is only ancillary to the order passed in I.A. No. 66 of 2024.

10. It is further contended that the petitioners are trying to delay the adjudication of I.A. No. 66 of 2024 and that the same can be observed in their action of consciously not filing their counters till date in I.A. No. 66 of 2024 and also to the underlying application, despite the Trial Court granting as many as seven (7) adjournments for the said purpose. The respondent further contended that the petitioners by filing I.A. No. 477 of 2023 are seeking to set-aside the order by which they were ex-parte and preferring the present revision with an intention to set the clock back are all to be viewed as delay tactics.

11. I have taken note of their respective contentions.

12. At the outset the finding of the Trial Court in the impugned order with respect to non-filing of written statement appears to be factually incorrect, as a certified copy of the Written Statement issued by the Trial Court is filed along with the material