Urgency in granting interim injunctions is vital to prevent unjust dispossession, emphasizing the need for timely court intervention under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC.

Thursday, the twenty eighth day of August two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2142 of 2025 Between:

S.M.Gulamali and others ...Petitioners and M.Srinivasulu and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners:

1.A. Syam Sundar Reddy Counsel for the respondents:

1.

The Court made the following:

C.R.P.No.2142 of 2025 O R PER:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.08.2025 in I.A.No.268 of 2025 in O.S.No.325 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Adoni, Kurnool District.

2. Heard Sri M.Chiranjeevi Babu, learned counsel representing ^the counsel for the petitioners through V.C.

3. The revision petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction and also l.A.No.268 of 2025 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C. to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents / defendants, their men etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of petition / plaint schedule property pending disposal of the suit. On 19.08.2025, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court directed issue of urgent notice to the respondents on payment of process adjourning the case to 23.09.2025. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition has been filed contending that the impugned order is contrary to law, evidence and probabilities of the case and the trial Court ought to have considered the order of this Court in the case of Smt. K.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs G.Nageshwara Reddy and others ^ and that ^taking advantage of the longer period of adjournment, the respondents are making serious attempts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in the property.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the purpose of filing the suit would be defeated if the matter is adjourned to a long date as it enables the respondents to dispossess the revision petitioners by taking advantage of no restraint order against them. He referred to the above cited decision and requested to pass similar order.

•20J5(3)ALT476 C.R.P.No.2142 of 2025 Jtvcv

5. In the case of Smt. K.Vijaya Lakshmi (supra), under similar circumstances, by considering the scope of Order XXXIX, Rule 1

C.P.C., it was held as follows:

“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 plaintiff has to establish prima facie case. It becomes the duty of the Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not. 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 plaintiff. When a prima facie case is made out, the Courts must grant temporary injunction and see that the plaintiff is not dispossessed in the meanwhile. The urgency of passing of orders under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC should be kept in mind. Even where the Court is not inclined to grant temporary injunction or decides to issue urgent notice in that case also the Court should issue urgent notice and post the matter to a shortest date. The Court should examine what is the reasonable time required to serve the notice upon the respondents. Where the p