The court emphasized procedural fairness in granting temporary injunctions, mandating reasons for decisions and the need for a fair hearing.

O R D E R

This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the docket order passed by the learned Special Assistant Agent and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam, in I.A.No.516 of 2020 in O.S.No.494 of 2020, dated 24.03.2024, wherein the interim injunction order granted on

20.11.2020 is vacated.

2. Heard Sri D.Tharun Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri N.Ramu, learned counsel for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.494 of 2020 seeking grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the house bearing No.1-69, admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.05 gts, situated at Srirampuram Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit schedule property’), restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed an application vide I.A.No.516 of 2020 for grant of ad-interim injunction, invoking the provisions under Rule 42(c) of the Agency Rules, 1924 (for short ‘Rules’). The learned Magistrate granted temporary injunction on 20.11.2020, and the said injunction order has been in force since then. He further submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property. To support his case, the petitioner filed electricity bills and other relevant documents. However, on 24.03.2024, the learned Magistrate without giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner, vacated the interim injunction order granted earlier and the same is contrary to law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has no semblance of right or interest over the suit schedule property. The petitioner filed the suit based on fabricated documents, claiming rights and seeking grant of perpetual injunction. The learned Magistrate, after due verification of the documents filed by both parties and after hearing their arguments, vacated the interim injunction by giving cogent reasons. The respondent is in possession of the suit schedule property, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties, and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.494 of 2020 on 19.11.2020, on the file of the Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.516 of 2020, seeking grant of an ad-interim injunction. The learned Magistrate granted the ad-interim injunction on 20.11.2020, however, the same was vacated by the learned Magistrate on 24.03.2024.

6. The specific case of the petitioner is that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present before the learned Magistrate on that day and the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing.

7. The record further discloses that the learned Magistrate, after hearing both parties, dismissed I.A.No.516 of 2020. However, while vacating the interim injunction, the learned Magistrate has neither assigned any reasons nor discussed the documents filed by the respective parties and simply concluded that, upon verifying the records filed by both parties, it was evident that the petitioner is not in physical possession of the suit schedule property.

8. The impugned order reveals that the respondent filed fiv