##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.984 of 2026

Date: 17.04.2026 Between:

Gopina Narayana and two others

...petitioners/defendants AND

Gopina Nagulu ...respondent/plaintiff

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the

petitioners/defendants, aggrieved by the interim injunction order dated 31.01.2026 granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem in I.A. No.195 of 2024 in O.S. No.200

of 2024.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.200 of 2024 on the file of the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, against the

2

petitioners/defendants for grant of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Acs.5-05 guntas in Sy.No.191/1/37, situated at Maramvari Gudem village, Aswarao Peta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.195 of 2024 for grant of temporary injunction and the said I.A. was allowed on

31.01.2026. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

3. Heard Mr. Kondaparthy Srinivasa, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. Devara Samhitha, learned counsel representing Mr. Penuballi Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for

the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the learned Agent to Government, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioners and the material placed on record, allowed the application based on the alleged report submitted by the Tahsildar, dated 08.11.2024. Though the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject property, the learned Agent to Government, without assigning any reasons, allowed the

3

application and the same is not sustainable under law. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 had earlier filed O.S.No.628 of 2020 on the file of the Special Assistant Agent- cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, against the respondent/plaintiff and others for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the very same schedule property mentioned in the present case and the learned Special Agent was pleased to grant an ad interim injunction in I.A.No.676 of 2020 in O.S.No.628 of 2020 and the same is continuing. The said interim injunction is still in force and the suit is pending. Suppressing the above said facts, the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.200 of 2024. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Agent to Government

is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the schedule property mentioned in O.S.No.628 of 2020 and O.S.No.200 of 2024 are distinct and different. The learned Agent to Government, upon considering the contentions raised by the respective parties, came to a conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the property and has been cultivating a standing crop (oil

4

palm plantation) for the last ten years. Hence, the learned Agent to Government has rightly allowed I.A.No.195 of 2024 and granted interim injuction and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 passed by the Agent to Government and the Civil Revision Petition is

liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.200 of 2024 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the subject property. Along with the said suit, I.A.No.195 of 2024 was filed under Rule 42 (C) of the Agency Rules, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) for grant of temporary injunction. As per the said provisions, the Agent to Government ought to have recorded the reasons