ORDER:

Heard Mr. P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. S. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.03.2023 in I.A. No. 01 of 2017 in O.S. No. 79 of 2017 passed by the learned Agent to the Government, Mahubabad District.

3. The impugned order reads as follows:

Claim:

This Suit for Perpetual Injunction filed U/R 6 & 14 of Agency Rules & Plaint filed under Section 26 & Order-7 Rule-1 of C.P.C. praying the Hon’ble Court to grant a decree an judgement in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants and supporters and all other persons claiming through them from in any way from interfering or entering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property.

Cause of Action:

The cause of action arose at Ambedkar Nagar, Garla Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

This suit coming of before me for hearing on this day in the presence of Sri P. Karunakar, Advocate for Plaintiff/Petitioner and Sri B. V. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent/Defendant No. 1 and Sri Pilli Ajay, Advocate for the Respondent/Defendant No. 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court has delivered the following Order:

Upon perusing the petition is allowed by granting Ad-

Interim Injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants their men, agents, servants and supporters and all other persons claiming through them from in any way from interfering or entering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property till disposal of the main suit.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY Vacant site of House property bearing No. 5-149 along with barked fencing of the site in quadrangular in an extent of 496.78 Square Yards (East: 95 Sq. Yards), (West: 100 Square Yards), (North: 55 Square Yards), (South: 37 Square Yards) situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Garla Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

East : Patta Land of Kurimalla Satyanarayana West : R&B Road North : Wall of the plaintiff remining house South : R&B Site Given under my hand and seal of this Court this the 04th day of March, 2023.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No. 1 would submit that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed the interlocutory application with a prayer to order police protection restraining the revision petitioner and the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the same was numbered as I.A. No. 1 of 2022. However, the learned Agent by the impugned order granted Ad-interim injunction against the revision petitioner and the respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property until disposal of the main suit.

5. Further submitted that the respondent No. 1 filed the suit seeking perpetual injunction in 2015 on the file of the Agent, Khammam District, wherein an interlocutory application vide I.A. 111 of 2015 was filed seeking interim injunction pending the suit and the Court had ordered status-quo to be maintained till the disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the file of the Agent, Mahabubabad and it was renumbered as O.S. No. 79 of 2017.

6. About seven (7) years thereafter i.e., in 2022, the respondent No. 1 filed the interlocutory application seeking police protection and on hearing that application the learned Agent had passed the impugned order.

7. The revision petitioner vehemently contended that when there is an order of status-quo until disposal of the suit, without hearing the parties in the application for police protection, passing the order of Ad-interim injunction without stating any reason. As such, at any stretch the impugned order is not meeting the legal standards hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

8. In support of the plea, learned counsel placed relian