IMPORTANT POINT
The trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions beyond the application’s scope, but the status quo regarding the property must be maintained until the main suit is resolved.

ORDER :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant to set aside the order and decree dated 14.08.2020 in I.A.No.176 of 2019 in O.S.No.116 of 2019 (O.S.No.266 of 2022) passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manthani and as confirmed by the Principal District Judge at Jayashankar Bhupalpalli by Common Order, dated 27.03.2023 in CMA No.42 of 2022 (CMA No.1/of 2020 old).

2. Heard Sri Mirza Aijaz Ali Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Puli Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.116 of 2019 for perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas, Ac.0.20 guntas and Ac.0.14 guntas in Sy.Nos.91/1A/A, 91/2B/2/2 and 91/2A/2/2, respectively, situated at Kataram village, Kataram Mandal of Jayashankar Bhupalpally district (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’). It is averred that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same by way of sale deed bearing document No.4554/2019 dated 24.07.2019; that defendant tried to interfere and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property on 03.11.2019 along with his henchmen. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.116 of 2019.

5. Along with the suit, petitioner also filed I.A.No.176 of 2019 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to grant ad-interim injunction. Initially, the trial Court, vide order dated 08.11.2019, granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

6. Defendant entered appearance and filed counter in the said application denying the claim of plaintiff and further contended that plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property and in fact, defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Acs.2.39 guntas in Sy.No.91/1 and Ac.1.29 guntas in Sy.No.91/2, total admeasuring Acs.4.28 guntas, having purchased the same through sale deed bearing document no.2254/2015 dated 03.08.2015 and finally, prayed to vacate the interim order granted earlier.

7. The trial Court, on due consideration of the material and documents placed on record, vide order dated 14.08.2020, dismissed the I.A.No.176 of 2019 and vacated the ad-interim injunction granted on 08.11.2019. However, the trial Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property and further directed the Tahsildar, Kataram not to mutate any further transfers/transactions and also directed the Sub-Registrar, Manthani and the Sub-Registrar, Mulugu not to register any further transfers/ transactions made either by plaintiff of defendant in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the main suit.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2020, defendant filed CMA No.42 of 2022 (old CMA No.1/2020) before the Principal District Judge at Jayashankar Bhupalpally and the Principal District Judge vide common order dated 27.03.2023 dismissed the said CMA by confirming the order dated 14.08.2020 passed in I.A.No.176 of 2019. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2023, the defendant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submitted that the trial Court committed error in granting status quo and also further directions to the Tahsildar, Kataram not to mutate any further transfers/transactions made by either parties in respect of the suit schedule property and also to the Sub-Registrar, Manthani and the Sub-Registrar,