HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2271 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

05.06.2024 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at Medchal in CMA.No.20 of 2023.

2. Heard Sri Vijay B.Paropkari, learned counsel for revision petitioners and Smt Sarampally Mrudula, learned counsel for respondents.

3. The revision petitioners are defendants and respondents herein are plaintiffs in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, are that the plaintiffs filed suit in OS.No.107 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri for perpetual injunction in respect of open Plot bearing No.13 admeasuring 593 square yards in Sy.Nos.157 to 162, 175, 176 & 177/A situated at Suraram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. In the said suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application in I.A.No.379 of 2019 for temporary injunction and initially, the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs vide order dated 27.04.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred CMA.No.20 of 2023 on the file II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal along with an application vide IA.No.366 of 2023 seeking suspension of order dated 27.04.2023 passed in IA.No.379 of 2019. The trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo vide order dated

19.06.2023.

4.1. Further, the plaintiffs also filed an application in I.A.No.886 of 2019 under Section 144 CPC for restitution of possession of the suit schedule property. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was averred that a criminal case in Crime No.148 of 2019 was registered against plaintiff No.2 under Section 420 IPC on 07.03.2019, he was arrested and was in judicial custody. In the meanwhile, the defendants demolished the compound wall constructed by the plaintiffs, raised new compound wall, also erected a gate and locked the same. The trial Court, after due enquiry, vide order dated 27.04.2023 ordered for restitution of possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 27.04.2023, in IA.No.886 of 2019, the defendants preferred revision in CRP.No.1599 of 2023 and a learned single Judge of this Court heard CRP.Nos.1599 and 1809 of 2023 together and, without going into merits of the case, disposed of the said cases, vide common order dated 12.02.2024, directing the first Appellate Court to dispose of CMA.No.20 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and until such time, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo.

Pursuant to the orders, dated 12.02.2024, the first Appellate Court, on consideration of the material placed on record, dismissed CMA.No.20 of 2023 vide order, dated 05.06.2024, thereby, confirming the order dated 27.04.2023 passed in I.A.No.379 of 2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants submitted that plaintiff No.2 in the affidavit filed in support of application in IA.No.886 of 2019, filed for restitution of possession of the suit schedule property, has categorically admitted that he lost possession on 07.03.2019. Learned counsel further submitted that though IA.No.886 of 2019 was allowed, nothing is placed on record to show that the orders were executed and plaintiff No.2 was inducted into possession, therefore in the absence of any material evidencing implementation of orders in IA.No.886 of 2019, the same remained on paper and plaintiff No.2 was never inducted into possession. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court ought to have seen that Section 144 CPC has n