COMMON ORDER:

Civil Revision Petition No.2037 of 2022 is filed by the legal representatives of the defendant in O.S.No.482 of 2020 aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.502 of 2020 in the said O.S. by the Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, dated 17.11.2020 in granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction to the respondent -

plaintiff.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.2001 of 2022 is filed by the same legal representatives of the defendant in I.A.No.528 of 2020 aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.502 of 2020 in O.S.No.482 of 2020 on the file of the Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, dated 23.11.2020 in granting Police Protection to the respondent – plaintiff.

3. The respondent – plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S.No.482 of 2020 for perpetual injunction stating that he was the owner and possessor of the house bearing No.10-4-4 in Survey No.137/1 to an extent of 839 Sq.Yards situated at Ramanjineya Colony, Chunchupalli Village, Chunchupalli Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. His Father, Asodu Zacaraiah acquired the schedule property and on 05.05.2003, executed a will deed to his two (02) sons Asodu Bhagyarao (Plaintiff) and Asodu Samuel in equal shares. After few months, his brother Samuel sold out his share to the plaintiff by way of sale agreement dated 05.08.2003. The plaintiff constructed a house therein and the Gram Panchayat, Chunchupalli gave permission for construction of the said house. The plaintiff was paying house tax towards the schedule property to the Gram Panchayat, Chunchupalli. The electricity department also allotted the service connection to the schedule property. The respondents – defendants interfered with the schedule property on 25.10.2020 and on 05.11.2020. Due to his timely resistance, the defendants left the schedule property and warned him that they would occupy the schedule property, as such, he filed the suit for permanent injunction and I.A.No.502 of 2020 for temporary injunction.

4. The trial court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order on 17.11.2020 and on a separate I.A. filed by the plaintiff vide I.A.No.528 of 2020 for police protection, also granted Police Protection to the plaintiff on

23.11.2020.

5. Aggrieved by the said orders of granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction and Police Protection to the plaintiff, the legal representatives of the defendant filed these Civil Revision Petitions contending that the learned Judge ought not to have passed the injunction order in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs)

without satisfying the ingredients for grant of injunction orders. There was no prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and no irreparable loss and injury was established by the plaintiffs. The suit and I.A. were filed with false allegations and forged documents and prayed to set aside the same.

6. The revision petitioners further contended that the respondent (plaintiff) did not have title to the property. No material was filed by the respondent to the effect that the mother of the revision petitioners had violated the orders passed by the court in I.A.No.502 of 2020 in O.S.No.482 of 2020. Grant of Police Protection could not be ordered as a matter of course without appreciating the facts of the case. The mother of the revision petitioners was having a judgment and decree in her favour in O.S.No.152 of 2016 and the respondents suppressing the same, obtained the interim orders and prayed to set aside the same.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that without going into the merits of the case, he was challenging the interim orders as there were no reasons given by the trial court in granting the ex-parte ad-interim injunction. No further date was given till when the orders would be in force. The trial court failed to follow the guideline