THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1875 of 2025

O R D E R

This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam (herein after referred to as “learned Magistrate”) in I.A.No.210 of 2023 in O.S.No.225 of 2023, dated 30.04.2025, wherein the injunction order granted in favour of the petitioner on

24.08.2023 in I.A.No.210 of 2023 is vacated.

2. Heard Sri G.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel representing Ms.B.Geetha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S. No. 225 of 2023 seeking grant of perpetual injunction. The Court below after giving cogent reasons granted injunction order on 24.08.2023. However, subsequently, the said I.A. was dismissed on 30.04.2025, and the interim injunction order was vacated without assigning any reasons. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Magistrate merely extracted the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents and vacated the interim injunction order solely based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Dammapeta, dated 02.04.2025, and the same is contrary to law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the Court below rightly dismissed the application by giving cogent reasons and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below.

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 suit vide O.S.No.225 of 2023 for grant of perpetual injunction and the Court below granted ad-interim injunction on 24.08.2023 in his favour. On 30.04.2025, the injunction application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. After perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, it reveals that the learned Magistrate extracted the pleadings of the affidavit and counter, and also recorded the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, and passed a very cryptic order, which reads as follows:

“As per the Tahsildar, Dammapeta report in Rc.No.B/248/2025,

dated 02.04.2025, the plaintiff counsel filed this suit and mentioned

boundaries East boundary is wrong and encroached the Donaka

Daari. The petitioner/plaintiff shown the wrong East boundaries in this suit. The petitioner/plaintiff not entitled for grant of injunction in respect of the land situated in between the scheduled mentioned boundaries.

In the result, the earlier Temporary Injunction Order in I.A.No.210 of 2023 in O.S.No.225 of 2023 vide its order dated 24.08.2023 is hereby vacated and accordingly I.A.No.210 of 2023 is dismissed without cost. Suit is posted for Written Statement.”

6. The above said order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has not given any reasons while vacating the interim order, and has especially relied upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Dammapeta, dated 02.04.2025.

7. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is contrary to law, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam, in I.A.No.210 of 2023 in O.S.No.225 of 2023, dated 30.04.2025 is set aside. However, the learned Magistrate is directed to decide the application, i.e., I.A. No. 210 of 2023 in O.S. No. 225 of 2023, afresh in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to both parties, including material evidence on record, within a period of three (3)

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, th