IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3607 of 2025 DATE: 20.01.2026 Between:

Naikoti Balamani and another …Petitioners AND Mathamal Gopal and 2 others …Respondents

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 07.07.2021 in I.A.No.123 of 2021 in O.S.No.53 of 2021 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Yellareddy, Kamareddy District.

2. Heard Sri Karunakar Reddy Gunda, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The respondent No.1 herein was the plaintiff No.1 deposed on behalf of the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 in the O.S.No.53 of 2021 that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural lands in Sy.No.30/19/, SCW, admeasuring Ac.1-20 gts and plaintiff No.2 is the owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.30/19/11, SCW, admeasuring Ac.1-20 gts and plaintiff No.3 is the owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.30/19/11, SCW, admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts (total Ac.5-20 gts) situated in the sivar of Jalalpur Village of Nagireddypet Mandal. The plaintiff No.1 contended that the respondents/defendants therein are not allowing him to cultivate the suit lands and causing illegal interference into his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit lands and bent upon to harass them, as they were poor agriculturists since more than 12 years. Hence, the plaintiff No.1 prayed to issue an ex-parte temporary injunction order in his favour restraining the respondents/defendants therein not to cause any sort of interference and obstruction over the suit schedule property.

5. Subsequently, respondents/defendants therein filed a counter affidavit before the learned trial Court in I.A.No.123 of 2021, denying the allegations made in the affidavit of the petitioner and contended that they have not occupied the suit schedule property.

6. The learned trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code passed the orders considering the averments made in the affidavit of the petitioners therein and also perused the documents in above case and upon hearing the case, the trial Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants therein and not to cause any sort of interference and obstruction over the suit schedule property and the injunction till the disposal of the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

7. On perusal of the interim order dated 07.07.2021, it appears that the learned trial Court has passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and the said application is still pending i.e., I.A.No.123 of 2021 for further adjudication, as the parties has made appearance and also filed the counter before the trial Court. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the trial Court to dispose of the application.

8. This Court without going into the merits of the case and without expressing any opinion on the order passed by the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the said application after due consideration of the counter and all other material placed on record by both parties.

9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the trial Court to dispose the I.A.No.123 of 2021 on merits after giving opportunity to both the parties and dispose of in accordance with law.

10. It is made clear that both the parties are directed to co-operate with the Court in disposal of the said application without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. The trial Court should not grant any adjournment beyond one week in respect of the disposal of the said application and disp