ORDER:

Heard Mr.T.Vasantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mohammed Rahail Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent.

2. Assailing the order dated 05.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.152 of

2023 in O.S.No.163 of 2023 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam (for short, ‘the Agent’), petitioners herein filed the present revision.

3. The 1st respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S.No.163 of 2023 before the learned Agent against the petitioners/defendants herein seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property. She has also filed an application vide I.A.No.152 of 2023 seeking ex parte ad interim injunction. Vide order dated 05.07.2023, learned Agent, granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of 1st respondent/plaintiff restraining the petitioners and 2nd respondent 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 consider the documents filed by the plaintiff and no reasons were assigned while dispensing with the notice to the petitioners herein and 2nd respondent. There is no finding with regard to urgency, Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss which are the cardinal principles for granting ex parte interim injunction. No date was given in the said application to enable the petitioners and 2nd respondent to enter appearance and file counter opposing the said application. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal.

5. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the 1st 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. He has also given date for entering appearance by the petitioners herein and 2nd respondent and they have entered appearance.

With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the same.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Agent did not give any date in I.A.No.152 of 2023 to enable the petitioners and 2nd respondent to enter their appearance and file counter opposing the said application. According to the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff, learned Agent gave a date.

7. In the light of the said controversies, this Court directed the registry to call for the record from the learned Agent in O.S.No.163 of 2023. Accordingly, attested copies of the documents of record are received.

8. Perusal of the said record would reveal that there is no mention as to the date on which learned Agent received plaint filed by the 1st respondent. However, in the plaint, plaintiff mentioned the date as 30.06.2023. There is no mention as to why it was not called till

05.07.2023. However, there is endorsement which is as follows:-

Taken on file: T.I.O. granted till further orders.

Issue Notices to the Respondents/Defendants.

Call on : 13.09.2023.

Sd/- Sd/-

5/7 SDM,MC,BCM Below the signature on the left side, the date mentioned as 5/7. There is no date mentioned below the right side signature. Assuming for a moment, it was taken on file on 05.07.2023, having granted ex parte interim injunction on 05.07.2023, learned Agent posted the said application to 13.09.2023 which is beyond 30 days.

9. Though learned Agent granted ex parte interim injunction, he has sent notices to the petitioners herein and 2nd respondent only on 14.08.2023. There is no explanation for the delay from 05.07.2023 to 14.08.2023. However, the petitioners have entered appearance by way of filing vakalath on 31.07.2023.

10. Perusal of the record would also reveal that there is a printed pro forma which is as follows:-

Case called on 13.09.2023.

P.C.: Present/Absent : Absent. } D.C.: Present/Absent : Present. }

Current st