THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1641 OF 2025

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 04.04.2025 in I.A.No.129 of 2025 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kamareddy.

2. Heard Sri Vijay B. Paropkari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff herein filed I.A.No.45 of 2025 in O.S.No.24 of 2025 before learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile) at Kamareddy and by order dated 21.03.2025, the trial Judge allowed the said I.A., granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the schedule property till the disposal of the main suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Kamareddy, seeking to set aside the order and decree passed in I.A.No.45 of 2025 in O.S.No.24 of 2025, dated 21.03.2025 by the trial Court. The respondents have also filed I.A.No.129 of 2025 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 before the Appellate Court seeking stay of operation of order and decree dated 21.03.2025. The Appellate Court by order dated 04.04.2025 allowed I.A.No.129 of 2025 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 and granted stay of operation of the order and decree passed in I.A.No.45 of 2025 in O.S.No.24 of 2025 dated 21.03.2025 till disposal of the appeal.

Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court ought to have seen that the order passed by the trial Court is well reasoned and unexceptionable; the Appellate Court erred in interdicting the orders of the trial Court in a casual manner without assigning any valid or cogent reasons; the Appellate Court ought not have allowed the I.A. on the very day it was filed and if the Appellate Court was of the opinion that the order of the trial Court is perverse, interim order for a limited period would have been passed. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the order dated 04.04.2025 in I.A.No.129 of 2025 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 passed by the Appellate Court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents and their family members were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as per the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2022 passed in O.S.No.24 of 2025 by learned Senior Civil Judge at Kamareddy. Considering the same and having regard to the apprehension expressed by the respondents that taking advantage of the order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff may try to evict the respondents, therefore the Appellate Court has rightly granted stay of operation of order and decree dated 21.03.2025 in I.A.No.45 of 2025 in O.S.No.24 of 2025 passed by the trial Court and thus prays to dismiss the Revision Petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that since the subject matter involves valuable rights of the parties in respect of immovable property and any prolonged pendency of the appeal is likely to cause prejudice to either of the parties, therefore this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the Appellate Court i.e., learned I Additional District Judge, Kamareddy, to dispose of C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 filed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible.

7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the learned I Additional District Judge, Kamareddy, to dispose of C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 filed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law. Till such time, both the parties shall maintain status-q