ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “the impugned order”) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), in I.A. No.244 of 2017 in O.S. No.266 of 2017. By the Impugned Order, the Trial Court dismissed the petition filed under Rule 42 (a) and (c) of A.P. Agency Rules, 1924seeking temporary injunction.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

i. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S. No.266 of 2017 for the relief of perpetual injunction by claiming ownership and possession over the schedule land measuring Acs.3-75 cents in Sy. No.7/2, Ramavaram (Z) Village, Venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District (present Jayashankar Bhupalpally District), which originally stood in the name of their paternal grandfather, Rajamadhuveeti Subba Raju, a Settlement Patta holder. After his death and the subsequent oral partition among his heirs, the petitioner/plaintiff has been looking after the cultivation and affairs of the schedule land, with the consent of other legal heirs. Part of the adjacent land in Sy. No.1/2 measuring Acs.4-25 cents was inherited by other family members, out of which Acs.3-80 cents was sold under a registered deed dated 21.05.2006 to the defendant No.3, who along with defendant No.2 is in possession of the said portion.

ii. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.244 of 2017 seeking temporary injunction and police protection restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. Initially, the Trial Court passed an interim order on 23.11.2017 granting temporary injunction.

iii. Upon filing of the counter affidavit and hearing both parties, the learned Trial Court observed that Rajamadhuveeti Subba Raju continues to be the original and current pattadar according to the revenue records. Further, it was observed that the plaintiff’s name is neither in the patta column nor in the enjoyer column. The learned Trial Court further noted that it was not clear whether the petitioners were actually in possession of the land. In view of the above observations, the learned Trial Court withdrew the temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the impugned order withdrawing the temporary injunction, the petitioner/plaintiff approached this Court by way of present Civil Revision Petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the learned Trial Court failed to take into consideration the seven documents, which were filed by the revision petitioner in I.A. No.244 of 2017 in O.S. No.266 of 2017, and ought to have marked the said documents while adjudicating the interlocutory application.

5. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order without marking the documents filed by both parties, despite the procedure for marking documents being expressly governed by Rule 51 of the Civil Rules of Practice. It is submitted that such non-marking of documents vitiates the proceedings, as held by this Court in CRP No.1234 of 2020, by order dated 28.07.2021.

6. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the material documents such as Mee Seva Pahanies, possession certificate, the Panchanama in Rc. No. B/709/2017 issued by the Mandal Surveyor, Village Revenue Officer, and Mandal Revenue Inspector in respect of the suit schedule land. Further, the finding of the learned Trial Court that the possession of the petitioner is only on paper is erroneous and unsupporte