THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.332 of 2025 Mr.A.P.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

Mr.J.Prabhakar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1-3 and 6.

Mr.Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 - 5.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (‘CMA’) arises out of an order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Siddipet (‘Trial Court’) in I.A.No.88 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2025 filed by the appellant herein.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.3 of 2025 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the appellant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land in Sy.Nos.89/E, 89/EE and 89/GHA/2 situated at Mulugu Mandal, Siddipet District. The appellant/ plaintiff filed I.A.No.88 of 2025 in the said Suit seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with or encroaching upon the petition schedule property till disposal of the main Suit.

3. By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the appellant's IA and vacated the earlier order of ad-interim injunction granted to the appellant on 04.02.2025.

4. From the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the respondents, it appears that the respondents had filed a Suit (O.S.No.14 of 2002) which was decreed in favour of the respondents by judgment and decree dated 30.12.2010. The respondents thereafter filed E.P.No.3 of 2017 seeking implementation of the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2010 passed in O.S.No.14 of 2002. The Station House Officer, Mulugu was directed to provide police protection to the respondents.

5. The respondents claim to be the owners of the land which is adjacent to the suit schedule property in the appellant’s later Suit (O.S.No.3 of 2025). The appellant filed a Writ Petition before this Court in 2024 (W.P.No.29214 of 2024) for restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the appellant’s land in Sy.Nos.89/E, 89/EE, 89/GHA/2 and 89/CHA. The appellant’s Writ Petition was disposed of on 24.10.2024 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the writ petitioner (the appellant herein) over the land in Sy.No.89. The appellant was given protection for as long as the appellant’s name was reflected in the Revenue Records as the absolute owner and possessor.

6. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 (in the CMA) filed a Review of the order dated 24.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.29241 of 2024 and the same is pending as on date. The appellant thereafter filed O.S.No.3 of 2025 wherein the appellant was initially granted ad-interim protection on 04.02.2025. The IA filed was finally dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.07.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant purchased the schedule property in 1996 and continues to be the owner of the said property. Counsel submits that the right and title of the appellant to the suit schedule property was evident from the documents filed before the Trial Court. Counsel also relies on the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.29214 of 2024 restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the schedule property.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 – 3 and 6 places documents to show that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.3 of 2025 (filed by the appellant) was entirely different from the suit schedule property in O.S.No.14 of 2002 (filed by the respondents). Senior Counsel submits that the appellant hence did not have any case to restrain the respondents from interfering with the land in the later Suit (O.S.No.3 of 2025). Senior Counsel further submits that the respondents have been in possession of the schedule property in the e