THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3604 of 2025

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2025, passed by the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, in I.A.No.162 of 2024 in O.S.No.178 of 2024, wherein the ad-interim injunction application filed by respondent No.1/complainant was allowed.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 is only contesting respondent. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.1 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 3. Heard Mr.G.Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.78 of 2024 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5/defendants therein from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, respondent No.1 also filed I.A.No.162 of 2024 seeking temporary injunction. The learned Agent to Government, without properly considering the contentions of the petitioner and without marking the documents filed by the respective parties, allowed the said application, even though respondent No.1/complainant was not in possession of the suit schedule property prior to the institution of the suit. He further submitted that the documents filed by respondent No.1/complainant are only xerox copies and they cannot be taken on record. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1376 of 2023, dated 08.09.2023.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.1/complainant filed suit in O.S.No.178 of 2024 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5/defendants therein from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, he also filed I.A.No.162 of 2024 seeking grant of temporary injunction, and the said application was allowed on 11.04.2025.

6. It is trite law that for grant of temporary injunction, the petitioner must establish prima facie possession, balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable loss, as enumerated under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The same principles are applicable for grant of temporary injunction under Order 42 of the Rules. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Agent to Government is bereft of reasons.

7. In Gaddipati Sambrajyam and another v Panguluri Mahalakshmamma and others, [(1995) 1 ALD 358], the erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh held that while deciding the applications under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of require satisfaction of three conditions: (1) a prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience in favour of the applicant, and (3) risk of irreparable injury if refused.

8. In Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi, [(2024) 11 SCC 351] the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of appellate Court interference in matters of temporary injunctions. The case arose from a family property dispute where the trial court had granted an injunction under Order XXXIX of C.P.C. restraining alienation of the suit property, finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiffs. The Gujarat High Court, however, set aside the injunction, holding that the trial court had virtually decreed the suit. The Supreme Court restored the injunction, reiterating that appellate Courts under Order 43 CPC cannot substitute their own discretion for that of the trial court unless the latter’s order suffers from perversity arbitrariness, mala fides or ignorance of settled law. It reaffirmed that for grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of