THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1556 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition challenging the propriety of the order dated 19.11.2024 in C.M.A.No.19 of 2019 on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, the respondents/defendants, preferred this revision.

2. I have heard Mr. Md. Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Mr. M.W.R. Ajayakar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the respondent herein instituted O.S. No. 271 of 2019 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile)–cum–III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against the present revision petitioners in respect of the suit schedule property, namely Plot No. 118, admeasuring 359 square yards, situated in Sy. No. 33 of Bommakal Village, Karimnagar. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 56 of 2019 seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court, in the first instance, granted an ad-interim injunction on 08.08.2019, and after conducting an enquiry, directed both parties to maintain status quo over the subject property till conclusion of the suit, by order dated 26.09.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/plaintiff preferred C.M.A. No. 19 of 2019. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the material on record, allowed the appeal, set aside the docket order dated 26.09.2019, and held that the appellant had made out a case for grant of temporary injunction. The present revision petition has thus been filed by the respondents/defendants challenging the said appellate order.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contends that the trial Court had properly appreciated the pleadings and material evidence. While an interim injunction was initially granted, the subsequent order directing status quo until disposal of the suit was both appropriate and balanced. However, the appellate Court, without adequately considering the pleadings and, in particular, the flow of title and possession evidenced through the release/redemption deed of 2016 and the agreement of sale, erroneously granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent. This, it is argued, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the appellate Court failed to appreciate that the petitioners themselves had instituted O.S. No. 964 of 2021 against the respondent seeking a declaration of title, which is still pending adjudication. In such circumstances, the trial Court was correct in holding that the essential issues concerning title and possession require determination at trial, and that granting temporary injunction to one party alone would be improper. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for interference by this Court and restoration of the trial Court’s order by setting aside the impugned appellate order.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently opposed the revision. He submits that the petitioners, while disputing title, have themselves admitted that title had passed to the vendor’s vendor of the respondent, and thus their present contentions are unsustainable. Moreover, the petitioners have not produced any document establishing their title or interest over the subject property. The earlier proceedings relied upon by the petitioners were not instituted against the respondent or his vendor, and hence the findings therein cannot bind him. It is further asserted that after the trial Court granted the status quo order, the petitioners trespassed into the subject property, demolished existing structures, and thereby created circumstances necessitating the filing of the appeal. The appellate Court, after considering these facts and applying the settled principles governing temporary injunction, rightly granted relief in favour of th