Remanded

Thadikamalla Chiranjeevi v. Chakka Narayan Rao

Telangana HC17 Mar 2023CRP/1065/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in revision held the Trial Court erred in passing an injunction order without complying with CPC Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, including recording reasons and hearing parties. The case was remanded to dispose of the application afresh.

What did the court decide?

Remanded the interlocutory application for fresh disposal after hearing both parties and considering all documents.

Thadikamalla Chiranjeevi Vs Chakka Narayan Rao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1065 OF 2021

¶7

Petition under Arlicle 227 of Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated 2310312021 in lA No.336/2021 in OS No.331/202'l on the file of the Court of the Special Assistant Agent and Sub -Divisional Magistrate-Mobile Court, al Bhadrachalam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Thadikamalla Chiranjeevi, S/o.Ramachandar Rao, Aged about 55 years, Resident of Banjara, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District.

¶10

Rajani Venkateswarlu, S/o.Satyam, Aged about 40 years, Occ Ward Member, Resident of Seethaigudem village, Chandrugonda Mandal, BhadradriKothagudem District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/PETITIO NFRs

¶12

AND

¶13

Chakka Narayan Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana, Aged about 51 years, occupation Welding Shop. Resident of V.M.Banjar, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying'that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to suspend order dated 2310312021 passed in lA No. 336 of 2021 in OS 331 ot 2021 on the file of SubDivisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, pending disposal of revision and to pass

¶17

For the Petitioners : SRI R.R.KALYAN, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent : SRI KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI, Advocate

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONC URABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA I?/r.O .YAIDU

¶21

CIV] , REVISION PETTTTON NO.106s OF 1U()21

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Hearc lr'arned coun se I lor the responct(,t- t. 2. This t ir.il Revision Pctition has br:en fit,::d by the petitioners,/Ct:ft:ndants against the Orr[:.r clated 23.O3.2'02.1 passed in I A.No.336 of^,.).Or),1 in O.S.No 331 ol 2021 by lezrrnecl Speciai .\ssisti,nt Agent and Sub-l ivisional Magistrate, Molrilc r-. ourt. at Bhadrachalr nr, by which the petitioners hr:r:in were restrained {r orn interfering with the alleged p:,sst:ssion of the ;:espr ndent/plaintiff over a house sit,uatetl at V.M.Banjar Village, Penuballi MandrLl, l.i-rarrLmam District.

¶24

l'h,: Cr ,urt below has delivered the l clkrwing Order:

¶25

"Tl'le rt s,oondents/ defendants, th<:ir h<:ncL,.men, seruanl.;, agents or anybodg on th.eir ,t<.half do herebg e.;trained from in any wag interfering tuith the pet tion.er/plaintilf peaceful posse.ssicn and.

¶26

¶27

enioAment^{of the} schedule ProPertg^{till further} Order."

¶28

As could^{be seen from the above' it is very clear} that the^{learnedSpecialAgent withoutlooking into the} documentsfr.ledbytherespondent/plaintiff,without observing^{the grounds and also withoutexplainingany} reasons,^{which are mandatoryunder Order XXXIX'} Rules 1^{and 2 ofCodeof Civil Procedure' 1908' simply} Order and^{restrained the} passed the^imPugned interfering^{with the alleged} petitioners^{herein from} dent herein.^As Per^{the Order} possession^{of the respon} XXXX,^{Rules 1 and 2 of C'P'C' it is very clear that the} Court shall^{in all cases' except where it appearsthat} the object^{of granting the injunction would be defeated} by the^{delay, before granting an injunction'direct} notice^{to the opposite party' Providedthat' where it is} proposed^{to grant an injunction without giving notice} of his^{applications to his opposite parties' the Court} shallrecord.thereasonsforitsopinionthattheobject

¶29

of granting tlLe injunction rvould be def'eartecl b1' delay and recluirr' the applicant to furnish copy of rrrjunction petitior:., ali davit and all the document s rr: ir d ry the applicant t<: trre opposite party.

¶30

Howev rr in the case on hand, therr) was no compliance by the Trial Court. The provis;ic)ns under Order XX}. X Rules l and 2 of C.P.C.',vere not complie:d u'th by the Court belou, '"r,hile pai:jsirrg the Order irrpu lned in this revision petition

¶31

After : aleful examination of the entire m,lterial placed beli ,r,: this Court, this Cotrrt r; ol the considered 'ie,w that it is just ald necessaqr to rermand the maitter to the Court below with a cliti,rction to dispose of ,be interlocutory application edir,:sh after hearing bol h the parties and after consitk:ring the documents rroduced by the petitioners as rvt:Il i1s the responctent

¶32

(

¶33

Under the circumstances narrated he^{-:,inLrefore,} this Cirzil F :vision petition is disposed of, ;-,: manding

¶34

x I t I

¶35

: I I I I i { I : i t I II I I I

¶36

¶37

I.A.No.336 of 2O2l^{in O.S'No'331of 2O2l to learned} Special Assistant^{Agent and Sub-DivisionalMagistrate'} Mobile Court at^{BhadrachaLlam, with a directionto} dispose of the^{same afresh after hearing the arguments} of both the^{parties and after consideringthe material} documents that^{may be produced by the parties to the} petition. Further,^{learned SpecialAssistant Agent shall} dispose of the^{said interlocutory application as} expeditiouslY^as Possible'

¶38

Pending miscellaneous^{applications'if any' shall} stand closed.^{No costs.}

¶39

{3$^"^HHy3't+HRA i/TRUE^COPY// ( SECTION^OFFICER

¶40

to ',. ,n" Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate'^{Mobile Court' at} a'g""*is'slft^{[,[i',1:ill"'i:*11:'^::i"ateroPUC]} 4. Two CD^CoPies

Kj.

HIGH COURT

DATED:17l03/2023

ORDER

CRP.No.1065 oI 20i'1

,fi-;;;-,.
,li
t,:' <br>Ir,) DS lt AY 2m i
ri ')
i
.. ,/
't ''.i
..1 ', , .. ,\ "'\ :-/
i_--:: -..---2'-

¶48

THE CRP IS DISPC};E.D OFF.

¶49

@qo
&ro
6 .I

Thadikamalla Chiranjeevi v. Chakka Narayan Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thadikamalla Chiranjeevi v. Chakka Narayan Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arakala Gali Reddy and another Vs Karla Parmeela and 2 others

Mrs. Syeda Farheen Fatima Vs Mr. Syed Ali Hussain

Sri.Neerudu Rajeswara Rao Vs M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Damera , Katla Vidyasri Vs Damera Gopal

Smt.Ballem , Gangalla Naveena Vs Gangalla Yakob

Ria Kabra Vs Anant Kabra