HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2264 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri P. Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri R.S. Sumith Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri L.Anand, learned counsel representing Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 1^st respondent/plaintiff.

2. 1^st respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit vide O.S.No.373 of

2022 (old O.S.No.42 of 2008) against respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein seeking specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 12.08.2005. During pendency of the said suit, the petitioners herein have come on record as defendant Nos.4 to 8. During pendency of the said application, 1^st respondent/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1350 of 2022 under Order 39 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC to restrain defendant Nos.4 to 8 not to go ahead with their further unlawful construction over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit by way of granting ad-interim-injunction in his favour and against defendant Nos.4 to 8. The said application was allowed on 30.09.2024. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/Plaintiff would contend that the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable since the order under revision is passed in application filed under Order 39 Rule 9 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction. In fact, the said provision is wrongly mentioned. Instead of mentioning Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, he has mentioned Order 39 Rule 9 of CPC. However, the said application is filed seeking an injunction and he sought a direction to respondent Nos.4 to 8 not to proceed with the unlawful construction over the suit schedule property till disposal of the said suit.

4. Sri P. Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners herein/defendant Nos.4 to 8 would contend that he cannot prefer an appeal since 1^st respondent/plaintiff has filed the said application under Order 39 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC and the impugned order is an appealable order. Learned trial Court granted injunction vide impugned order dated 30.09.2024 on the ground that the Division Bench in W.A.No.298 of 2022 dated 05.06.2023 restrained the petitioners herein/defendant Nos.4 to 8 from making further construction over the suit schedule property to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. In fact, the Apex Court vide order dated

29.01.2025 in SLP (C) No.12400 of 2023, set aside the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.298 of 2022 permitting the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 to raise further construction which shall be at the entire risk and peril of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein. Therefore, the impugned order is not on consideration of the said aspects.

5. 1^st respondent/plaintiff is taking advantage of the said proceedings, obtained the impugned order by way of suppression and misrepresentation of facts.

6. As discussed supra, 1^st respondent/plaintiff had filed the aforesaid application vide I.A.No.1350 of 2022 (old I.A.No.280 of 2020 in O.S.No.373 of 2022 under Order 39 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking ad - interim injunction in his favour against the defendants Nos.4 to 8 restraining them from proceeding with the further unlawful construction over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, it is an injunction petition. Instead of mentioning the provision as Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, 1^st respondent/plaintiff has mentioned the provision as Order 39 Rule 9 of CPC. Wrong quoting and mis-quoting of a provision is not a ground to reject the relief sought by 1^st respondent/plaintiff in the said application. An objection was raised by the petitioners with regard to maintainability of the said application, the learned trial Court did not consider the said aspects. However, learned trial Court granted ad interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein from proceeding with the construction. Therefore, the impugned order date