THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant aggrieved for not passing any orders in I.A. No.997 of 2018 in I.A. No.193 of 2018 in O.S. No.160 of 2018 by the Principal Junior civil Judge, Warangal.

2. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and Ms. M. Vanajakshi, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No.160 of 2018 seeking the relief of permanent injunction and filed I.A. No.193 of 2018 for grant of interim injunction. A caveat was filed by the revision petitioner herein. But, without hearing the revision petitioner-caveator, on the submission of the respondent-plaintiff before the trial court that the caveator’s Advocate refused to receive the notice, the lower court passed order directing the respondent therein alone to maintain ‘status quo’ over the suit schedule property.

3.1. He further submitted that notice in I.A. No.193 of 2018 and summons in O.S. No.160 of 2018 were served on the revision petitioner herein i.e. respondent therein on 05.03.2018 stating that the matter was posted to 02.05.2018. But, without any advancement petition, the court below called the matter on 14.03.2018 and passed the impugned docket order directing the revision petitioner alone i.e. respondent in I.A. No.193 of 2018 to maintain ‘status quo’ over the suit schedule property. If at all the court below wanted to pass the status quo order, the same had to be maintained by both the parties, but not the respondent therein alone. Taking advantage of the said order, the respondent-plaintiff proceeded with the construction in the suit schedule property. As such, the revision petitioner herein filed I.A. No.997 of 2018 seeking status quo ante, but no orders were passed in the said I.A. till date.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No.160 of 2018 contending that the suit schedule property was an open plot bearing No.78 to an extent of 300 sq. yds., situated in Sy. No.1029, but along with the plaint, she filed the documents issued by the Authorities of HUDA for regularization, which would show that the plot No.78 was situated in Sy.No.1022. He further submitted that the property of the revision petitioner was situated in Sy. No.1030/B, by showing wrong property the respondent wanted to grab the property of the petitioner and the respondent proceeded with the construction. He also further pointed that the sale deed filed by the respondent-plaintiff dated 02.01.1993 would disclose the age of the respondent as 12 years, but her occupation was shown as Government Servant. The court below, without considering all these aspects had passed the docket order dated 14.03.2018 in I.A. No.193 of 2018 and prayed to give a direction to the court below to dispose of I.A. No.997 of 2018 in I.A. No.193 of 2018 within a specific period. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit was now transferred to the court of Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda, and renumbered as O.S. No.766 of 2025.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent appeared virtually and reported that the merits of the case could not be gone into at this stage and reported no objection to give a direction to the court below to dispose of the matter within a reasonable time.

5. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, it is considered fit to direct the respondent-plaintiff to file their counter, if any, in I.A. No.997 of 2018 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda to dispose of I.A. No.997 of 2018 in I.A. No.193 of 2018 in O.S. No.766 of 2025 within a period of one week thereafter.

6. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this