ORDER:

Heard Mr.Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Sandeep Kumar Bodla, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

2. Assailing the order dated 17.09.2020 passed in I.A.No.253 of

2020 in O.S.No.272 of 2020 by the Special Assistant Agent and Sub Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam (for short, ‘the Agent’), petitioners herein/defendants filed the present revision.

3. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S.No.272 of

2020 before the learned Agent seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein/defendants from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has also filed an application vide I.A.No.253 of 2020 seeking interim injunction. Vide order dated 17.09.2020, learned Agent, granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property till further orders. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed the present revision.

4. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that learned Agent did not assign reasons while granting interim injunction. There is no finding with regard to Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss which are the cardinal principles for granting ex parte interim injunction. The plaintiff has not filed any document to prove her title and possession over the suit schedule property. She has filed only photostat copies of certain documents and she is never in possession over the suit schedule property. Basing on the interim injunction, the plaintiff and her Advocate in collusion with the police are trying to interfere with the possession of the defendants. The plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title instead of a suit for bare injunction. The police are threatening the defendants to vacate the premises The defendants have filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.23994 of 2023 wherein this Court granted interim order on 30.08.2023 directing the police not to interfere with the possession of the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. The learned Agent has not even given any date for entering appearance of the petitioners herein - defendants, filing counter and hearing the said I.A. With the said submissions, the petitioners sought to set aside the impugned order.

5. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/

plaintiff contended that on consideration of entire material only, learned Agent granted ex parte ad interim injunction and there is no error in it. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the same.

6. Be that as it may, the impugned order dated 17.09.2020 is in complete violation of the procedure laid down under law and also the principle laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. There is no consideration of documents filed by the plaintiff. No reasons were assigned. There is no finding with regard to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss which are the cardinal principles to grant interim order. In similar circumstances, this Court vide order dated 15.03.2022 in C.R.P. No.985 of 2020, referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi1 set aside the order passed by the learned Agent and remanded the matter back to the trial Court.

7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.09.2020 in I.A.No.253 of 2020 in O.S.No.272 of 2020

1. (1993) 3 SCC 161

passed by Special Assistant Agent and Sub Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Agent, with a direction to consider I.A.No.253 of 2020 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law by putting the parties on notice and