THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.35 of 2022

ORDER:

The present CRP is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing order dated 28.08.2020 passed in I.A.no.195 of 2020 in O.S.No.209 of 2020 by the learned Special Assistant Agent And Sub Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) Court at Bhadrachalam.

2. Petitioner is the respondent and the respondents are the petitioners in I.A.No.195 of 2020.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court ought to have seen that under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 while granting ex-parte injunction orders, the Court is bound to give reasons for passing such orders and ought not to have granted Police protection and prayed to set aside the same.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents (petitioners)

fairly conceded to remand the matter.

5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985).

6. On perusal of the order in I.A.No.195 of 2020 in O.S.No.209 of 2020, dated 28.08.2020, it speaks as under:

“The petition filed along with original suit and documents filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. The petitioners/plaintiffs are absolute owner and possessor of the petition suit scheduled property. The entire suit scheduled property is situated at Patwarigudem Revenue Village, Dammapeta Revenue Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District and the petitioner is in possession over the scheduled property. That there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.

Hence, this court DOTH ORDER that Interim injunction is granted to restrain the Respondents/Defendants and their servants, agents and their men or anybody on behalf of her from any way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the petition scheduled property until further orders.”

7. In view of the Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party and the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay.

8. The order passed by the learned Trial Court does not speak with regard to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, which is likely to be caused to the respondent – petitioner, if ad interim injunction is not granted. Furthermore, there is no direction to the respondent – petitioner in the said order that he shall comply with the Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) of CPC.

9. As the learned Trial Court failed to record any reasons for granting ad interim injunction order in favour of the respondents – petitioners, this Court feels that it is fit case to remand the matter to the learned Trial Court by giving opportunity to the petitioner- respondent to file counter and hear the parties afresh.

10. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam on 28.08.2020 in I.A.No.195 of 2020 in O.S.No.209 of 2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Mobile Court by giving opportunity to the petitioner - respondent to file counter and hear the parties afresh. It is made clear that since the schedule property is an agricultural land, parties are hereby directed to maintain status-quo till disposal of the I.A. in all aspects.

11. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim order and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

________________