ORDER

Defendant No.1 in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order, dated 24.12.2021 in I.A.No.1483 of 2021 in O.S.No.293 of 2021 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being plaintiffs filed O.S.No.293 of 2021 against revision petitioner and others seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, associates, followers and confederates from in any way interfering with and/or causing obstruction to the peaceful Page 2 of 20 SRS,J possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property.

3. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that plaintiff No.2 is daughter of plaintiff No.1; that plaintiff No.1 took the suit schedule shop on oral lease from its owners i.e. Ravela Ramalingaiah and Ravela Srinivas, forty years back and has been running cool drink shop; that suit schedule property is one of the shops in tiled roofed house commonly known as ‘Ravela Ramalingaiah Satram Shops’; that defendant No.1 got house towards South of the tiled roofed house; that since three years, defendant No.1 has been raising disputes with owners of the suit schedule property; that in the said process defendant No.1 got instigated defendant No.3 and on 13.11.2018 with the support of unruly elements, caused damage to the tiled roof of the building; that plaintiff No.2 along with other tenants lodged complaint with the SHO, Thulluru Police Station; that owners of the shops and defendant No.1 filed W.P.Nos.43066 of 2018 and 43748 of 2018 respectively; that both the writ petitions were disposed of by common order, dated 19.01.2021 recording a finding that owners of the plaintiffs proved possession over the property and further directed respondents therein not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession except by following due process of law; that defendant No.2 by abusing his office Page 3 of 20 SRS,J position as defendant No.3 got published notice, dated 16.02.2021 by giving misinterpretations to the context of the orders of the High Court; that defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with staff of defendant No.3 came to the suit schedule property on 18.08.2021 and tried to damage the suit schedule property, however, the same was resisted and hence, suit was filed for injunction.

4. Pending the suit, defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.1483 of 2021 to reject the plaint contending that in view of the common order passed by the High Court, there is cloud over the possession of the owners of the suit schedule property and there is no cause of action to file the present suit. It is further averred that the suit is barred by law. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed I.A.No.1482 of 2021 to reject the plaint as the suit is pre-mature without cause of action and it is barred by law.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.1483 of 2021, defendant No.1 contended inter alia that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and only Endowments Tribunal has got jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. The suit is filed without cause of action and hence, prayed to reject the plaint.

6. Plaintiffs filed counter and opposed the application.

Page 4 of 20 SRS,J

7. By order, dated 24.12.2021 trial Court disposed of I.A.No.1483 of 2021. Against the said order, the present revision is filed.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a reading of the plaint would disclose that the suit O.S.No.293 of 2021 is barred by law in view of the findings in W.P.No.43066 of 2018. He would submit that as per orders of the High Court in the above mentioned writ petitions, notice was issued to the plaintiffs under A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the suit is filed without cause of action and without adding owners of the property as parties to the suit. He would further submit that suit is pre-matured and barred by law. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected on the point of non-joinder or property