Marisetti Satyanarayana Vs Vaitla Rama Murthy

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, aggrieved by the docket order dated 09.03.2026 passed in S.R. No.1155 of 2026 in C.M.A. No.___ of 2026 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Kovvur.

¶17

The petitioner herein instituted a suit in O.S. No.34 of 2026 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Junior Division), Kovvur, on 24.02.2026, seeking a decree of permanent injunction. Along with the said suit, the petitioner also filed I.A. No.113 of 2026 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction. However, the trial Court, without considering the said interlocutory application, ordered issuance of urgent notice and posted the matter to 26.02.2026. Aggrieved by the said docket order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.M.A. S.R. No.1155 of 2026 under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the XI Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, on 06.03.2026. The said appeal, however, was returned by the appellate Court holding that the C.M.A. was not maintainable. On perusal of the docket order, it is evident that the appellate Court observed that it is necessary to refer to the statutory scheme governing appeals against orders relating to temporary injunctions. Under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, an appeal lies against an order passed under Rules 1, 2, 2-A, 4, or 10 of Order XXXIX CPC. Such an appeal is maintainable only when the trial

¶18

Court grants, refuses, discharges, varies, or sets aside an order of temporary injunction. The appellate Court held that, in the present case, the action of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Junior Division), Kovvur, in issuing urgent notice does not fall within the scope of the aforesaid provision. Though the petitioner relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (AIR 2000 SC 3032 ), the appellate Court failed to consider the ratio laid down in the said judgment.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the subject property in a bank auction, having paid the entire sale consideration, and that a sale deed has been duly executed in his favour. It was further submitted that, in such circumstances, the trial Court’s act of merely issuing urgent notice, without granting interim injunction, amounts in effect to a refusal of temporary injunction. Therefore, the said order would fall within the ambit of “refusal” under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC. However, the appellate Court failed to consider the said submission and repeatedly adjourned the matter, ultimately posting it to 04.05.2026. The petitioner also filed an advance petition, but the same has not been numbered.

¶20

Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court is

¶21

of the view that, in the present case, though the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and has filed an application seeking temporary injunction, the

¶22

trial Court, by merely ordering urgent notice, has in effect refused to grant interim injunction. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned docket order dated 09.03.2026, and the matter is remanded to the Court of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Kovvur with a direction to number the C.M.A. and dispose of the same on merits, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶24

JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶25

17.04.2026 Note: issue C.C by 20.04.2026

¶26

klk

¶27

45

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH