THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.1157 of 2025

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Docket Order dated 11.03.2025 in O.S.No.965 of 2020 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (for short, ‘the impugned order’)

2. Heard Mr. Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the above suit.

4. Initially the suit was filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff) herein under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for perpetual injunction.

5. Pending suit, respondent No.1 (plaintiff) filed I.A.No.87 of 2020 in O.S.No.965 of 2020 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Court to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents, their employees, agents, henchmen or any other person claiming through or under them from either encroaching, interfering or disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property.

6. The petitioners herein (i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2) entered appearance before the Trial Court and filed their counter-affidavit to the above I.A., viz., I.A.No.87 of 2020 in O.S.No.965 of 2020. Since then, I.A.No.87 of 2020 in O.S.No.965 of 2020 is pending for consideration before the Trial Court.

7. Aggrieved, the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 and 2) have filed the instant Revision praying the Court to give a direction to the Trial Court to decide and dispose of I.A.No.87 of 2020 in O.S.No.965 of 2020 pending on the file of the Trial Court.

8. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that there is no injunction order operating against the petitioners herein and therefore no prejudice is caused to them on account of I.A.No.87 of 2020 in O.S.No.965 of 2020 filed by the respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) not being decided early by the Trial Court.

9. Further, as regards the default committed by respondent No.2 (defendant No.3) is concerned, it is purely an inter se private dispute between petitioners (defendant Nos.1 and 2) and respondent No.2 (defendant No.3). The petitioners herein would be free to take appropriate legal steps in accordance with the development agreement that has been entered into between the parties in respect of action on the part of respondent No.2 (defendant No.3) in not proceeding further with the alleged development agreement.

10. In the given circumstances, this Court does not find any strong case made out by learned counsel for the petitioners seeking for an appropriate direction to the Trial Court to decide and dispose of I.A.No.87 of 2020 in O.S.No.965 of 2020 pending on the file of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

11. Nonetheless, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit is one which has been filed in the year 2020, and if an I.A. has been filed therein and the same is pending for more than five years, it is high time that the Trial Court should look into the same and take appropriate steps for concluding the same as expeditiously as possible.

12. As a consequence, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________

P. SAM KOSHY, J Date: 17.04.2025 Ndr