ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/defendants, challenging the order, dated 11.01.2023, passed in I.A.No.430 of 2022 in O.S.No.438 of 2022 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam (for short, ‘Agency Court’), whereby, temporary injunction order is granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff restraining the petitioners/defendants, their henchmen, servants, agents or anybody on their behalf from anyway interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that though both the parties have adduced their respective documentary evidence, the Agency Court has neither marked them nor referred to them while passing the order of injunction, which is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T.Bhopal Reddy and another Vs.

K.R.Lakshmi Bai and another1. The respondent/plaintiff obtained injunction order basing on forged and fabricated documents. The respondent in his pleadings, claimed the suit schedule land as a house site, whereas, in the schedule, the subject property was shown as open land. Further, the Miscellaneous Receipts and NOC issued by Gram Panchayat to the respondent/plaintiff were cancelled. The Court below ought not have considered the cancelled documents and ought not have held that the respondent/plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The respondent/plaintiff approached the Court below with unclean hands. Without there being any evidence on record, the Court below granted injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on the ipse dixit of the respondent/plaintiff and requested this Court to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Agency Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff contended that in the absence of any rule in the Agency Rules for marking the documents and in view of non-application of Civil Rules of Practice to the proceedings before the Agency Court, the impugned order cannot be set aside on the simple ground that the Court below did not mark the documents which are required to be marked under Rules 60 and 115 of the Civil Rules of Practice.

Therefore, the impugned order cannot be set aside.

1 1998 (1) ALD 770 (DB)

5. Undoubtedly, the Civil Rules of Practice have no application to the proceedings before the Agency Courts and they are only applicable to the Civil Courts in the State of Telangana, but the Agency Courts are marking the documents though Civil Rules of Practice are not applicable, by practice, to consider the documents. An identical question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the composite High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case between R.Parijatham and another Vs. M.Kameshwari and others2, wherein, it was held that failure to mark the documents is an error and set aside the order impugned therein and remanded the matter to the trial Court, directing the parties therein to maintain status quo till disposal of the petitions. It was further held as follows:

“…in order to come to a prima facie conclusion, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court should necessarily be able to locate the documents and know its contents to agree with either of the contentions; that nowhere it is envisaged that the case of the contesting parties can only be decided on the affidavits and not on any other material and that in the absence of any specific rule so far as marking of documents at the interlocutory stage is concerned, the Courts would not be justified in not giving any marking at all to such of the documents on which both sides would rely.

Regr