Judicial authorities must provide reasons for granting temporary injunctions, ensuring adherence to legal standards for prima facie possession and balance of convenience.

Order :

J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed invoking the provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem in I.A.No.316 of 2024 in O.S.No.326 of 2024, where under temporary injunction application filed by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed in respect of the suit schedule property.

2. Heard Sri P.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Krishna Kishore, learned counsel for respondent.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed by the Agent to Government.

Brief facts of the case:

4. The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.326 of 2024 before the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.400/33/176 situated at Aswapuram revenue village and Mandal. The plaintiff has inherited the said property from his forefathers. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.316 of 2024 for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. In the said application, the defendant filed counter denying the averments made by the plaintiff. Learned Agent to Government allowed the said application and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff by its order dated 28.05.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant:

5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Agent to Government, without properly considering the contentions of the defendant in I.A.No.316 of 2024, granted interim injunction without assigning any reasons. He further submitted that the plaintiff is not having any semblance of right or interest over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff obtained revenue entries in his name by misrepresenting the facts before the revenue authorities. Even according to the plaintiff, he purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas in the very same survey number from the brother of defendant.

5.2 He further submitted that the defendant filed suit in O.S.No.421 of 2022 before the Special Assistant Agent to Government and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam against his brother for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.0-20 guntas covered by Sy.No.400/33 and the said suit was decreed on 13.12.2022. Thereafter, the defendant filed E.P. No.5 of 2023 seeking police protection and the same was allowed on 28.04.2023. When the police failed to provide police aid, the defendant approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No.14069 of 2023 and the same was disposed of on 10.01.2024. The above said documents were placed before the learned Agent to Government, however, learned Agent to Government without considering the same, allowed I.A. No.316 of 2024. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Agent to Government is contrary to the material on record and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff:

6.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent vehemently contended that the subject property claimed in the present suit in O.S.No.326 of 2024 and the property claimed by the defendant in O.S. No.421 of 2022 are different and distinct. Basing upon the decree passed in O.S.No.421 of 2022, the defendant is not entitled to interfere with the schedule property in O.S. No.326 of 2024. He further submitted that the learned Agent to Government after considering the contentions of the respective parties and also after due verification of the documents, which are filed by the parties, rightly allowed the I.A. by giving cogent reasons. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Agent to Government.

Analysis:

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the