THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.62 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/appellants/respondents aggrieved by the order, dated 06.09.2024 in I.A.No.247 of 2024 in C.M.A.No.04 of 2024 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal.

2. Heard Mr.B.Venkateshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.B.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed a suit being O.S.No.62 of 2022 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur, against the petitioners herein for permanent injunction. In the said suit, I.A.No.487 of 2022 was filed seeking ad interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent over the suit schedule property. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur, having heard learned counsel on both sides and having perused entire material on record, granted temporary injunction.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred C.M.A.No.04 of 2024 in which they filed I.A.No.247 of 2024 in C.M.A.No.04 of 2024 under Order XLI Rule 5 (1) read with Section 151 of C.P.C seeking stay of order and decree, dated 28.09.2023 in I.A.No.487 of 2022 in O.S.No.62 of 2022, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur.

5. The learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal, after hearing both parties and taking into consideration the counter-affidavit, dismissed the said application on 06.09.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision case is filed by the petitioners on the following ground:

“The order passed in I.A.No.487 of 2022 is executable in nature and in the event of petitioners violate the temporary injunction granted under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C. the petitioners seek punishment for disobedience of the said order. On the said ground, the learned Principal District Judge was pleased to dismiss the said application.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court, without considering the documents filed by the petitioners, has erroneously dismissed the application filed by them. He further submits that the petitioners’ father purchased the subject land by virtue of registered Sale Deed bearing document No.693 of 1979, dated 11.07.1979 and after his demise, the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court failed to consider the original Agreement, dated 25.04.1996, alleged to have been executed among the family members by partitioning the properties.

7. It is contended that in fact, petitioner No.2 is an illiterate and he used to keep his left hand thumb impression for his signature. But, the alleged Agreement, dated 25.04.1996 contains the signature of petitioner No.2 in English, which does not belong to him. The respondent/plaintiff did not file the alleged Agreement, dated 25.04.1996. He also further submits that the trial Court failed to consider the criminal case lodged by petitioner No.2 before PS Undavelli against the respondent/plaintiff in respect of alleged fabricated and forged Agreement, dated

25.04.1996.

8. He also further submits that as a counter blast, the respondent along with other brothers filed suits against the petitioners without any cause of action and the same are pending before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent herein has obtained the order of injunction without there being any right and title over subject property and the learned trial Court without considering the said aspects passed impugned order dismissing the application.

9. The respondent filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of petition and submits that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal after consider