The appellate court must ensure due consideration of the trial court's order before intervening in matters of interim injunction.

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff invoking the provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Medak, in C.M.A.No.18 of 2023, dated 11.04.2025, setting aside the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.280 of 2018 in O.S.No.83 of 2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narsapur, Medak District.

2. With the consent of both parties, the civil revision petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3. Heard Mr. Rajashekar Thallapally, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jalli Narendar, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Facts giving rise in filing the civil revision briefly stated are that the petitioner filed O.S.No.83 of 2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Narsapur, Medak District, for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.280 of 2018 for grant of ad interim injunction. The Court below allowed I.A.No.280 of 2018, by its order dated 11.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.18 of 2023 before the Principal District Judge at Medak, and the said appeal was allowed on 11.04.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower appellate Court without properly considering the contentions of the petitioner set aside the well considered order passed by the trial Court. He further submitted that till the disposal of the appeal, i.e., 11.04.2025, the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner is continued and still, the petitioner is in possession of the subject property. He also submitted that the suit is coming up for cross- examination of the plaintiff. By virtue of the orders passed by the lower appellate Court, the respondent is interfering with the suit schedule property.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not having any semblance of right in respect of the suit schedule property. The lower appellate Court has rightly set aside the injunction order granted by the lower appellate Court.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner filed O.S.No.83 of 2018 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.280 of 2018 and the trial Court by its order dated 11.09.2023 granted ad interim injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.18 of 2023 and the lower appellate Court allowed the said appeal on 11.04.2025.

8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the date of institution of the suit till the disposal of the appeal, the ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court is continued and the said submission was not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent.

9. The record further reveals that the petitioner filed the suit in the year 2018 and ad interim injunction was granted in faovur of the petitioner continued till 11.04.2025. The suit schedule property is a residential house and open plot. Even according to both parties, the suit is riped for trial and coming up for cross-examination of the plaintiff.

10. Learned counsel for both the parties are requested the Court to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit by fixing time limit.

11. Taking into consideration the fa