High Court disposed of a civil revision challenging the confirmation of an interim injunction. The court directed parties to maintain status quo pending the trial court's final disposal of the suit.
Civil revision disposed of; parties directed to maintain status quo pending disposal of the suit; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3300 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3762 OF 2024
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dt.2411012024 passed in C IvlA no. 5 ol 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ivlulugu confirming the order passed in lA.no.24Ol2023in OS.No.12512022 dated 1010712023 on the file of learned Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu, lrlulugu District.
Between:
..PETITIONERS
AND
Kola Govardhan, S/o late Narayana Aged 66years occ. Agriculture r/o H.no.2-7 -123814- l, Excise Colony Hanamakonda, Hanamakonda Dist.
...RESPONDENT
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to stay the operation of the orderpassed in lA.No. 24012023(old no.345/2022)in O5.no.12512022 dt.101712023 on the file of learned Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu as confirmed in CMA no.512023 dt.2411012024passed by thelearned Principal District Judge, Mulugu, pending disposal of revision.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MADIRAJU PRABHAKAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA
The Court made the following: ORDER
IItL, i
1
.tp _31 62-2024 NBK, J
'-,--T
:./
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CML REVISION PETITION No.3762 of 2024
ORDER:
The defendants in O.S.No.l25 of 2022 before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mulugir, are the revision petitioners herein. The plaintilf filed the Suit O.S.No.12 5 of 2022 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, and against the defendants, in respect of the Suit Schedule Propefty i.e., Ac.l -00 guntas in Survey No.1080 of Mulugu Village and Mandal, Mulugu District. The plaintiff filed an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.240 of 11023 seeking temporary injunction against the defendants. The leamed Additic,nal Junior Civil Judge, by Order dated 10.07.2023 granted interim injunction in favour ofthe plaintiff, thereby restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjol,ment of the suit schedule property.
Challenging the interirn iniunction dated 10.07.2023, the defendants filed an appeal i.e., CMA No.5 of 2023 before the Principal District Judge, at Mulugu. The leamed District Judge, by the impugned Order dated 24.10.2024 dismissed the apperrl, thereby confirming the interim injunction Order dated 10.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.240 of 2023 in the Suit O.S.No.l25 of 2022. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed this civil revision petition.
2
crp_3762 2024 NBK, J
to the petitioners, and consequent to the disposal of the writpetition,the petitioners filed O.S.No. I 22 of 2022 for declaration of title and rectification of revenue records and the said Suit O.S.No.122 of 2022 is a comprehensive suit, and therefore injunction could not have beengranted to theplaintiff. It is also contended that the entire property under O.S.No.l22 of 2022is Ac.l35 guntas in Survey No.1080 of Mulugu Village and Mandal;whereas the plaintiff filed O.S.No. 125 of 2022 for Ac.1-00 guntas in same Survey No.1080 of Mulugu Village and Mandal, and therefore the Courtsbelow ought to have appreciated about the bonafides of theplaintiff. Itis also contended that even as per revenue records (i.e., pahanis), theplaintiffisnot in possession of the suit schedule property; and in view ofthe comprehensive suit O.S.No.122 of 2022 and also the request for correction ofrecords being pending, the Courts below ought not to have relied on Exs.P-16 dated 17.03.2023 which is a post-Suit document, and oughtnot to have granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff; and hencethe interiminjunction is liable to be set aside.
'74. .....So even thoughprima facie,the name of said Sanjeeva Rao was reflecting as possessor in Ex.P2 to P{4 by virtue of subsequent document under Ex.Pl and also under Ex.P15 aspetitionerprima facie sought for deletion of name of Sanjeeva rao, hence, to show bonafides that his name was considered as allegedpattedarand
I I
\
\
3
co 3762_2024 NBK, J
possessor prima facie he relied upon Ex.P16 Nala conversion. The validity of the Ex.P16 and other documents canbe lookedinto or will be appreciated by the trial court at appropriate stage.
7 . Accordingll', with the consent of both the parties, the civil revision petition is disposed of, directing both the parties to maintain status quo, pending disposal of the Suit O.S.No.125 of 2022. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( SECTION OFFICER
To,
5 TwoCD CoPies TPK/gh w
HlGH COURT
I
t I
DATED:21 10212025
/'':, '-:- ' t ''..-<br>,: il v.j' '<br>20 sEP 21ffi ,.i
I
,
ORDER
CRP.No.3762 ot 2024
CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISPOSED OF
2 I IDK
Kola Govardhan & Another
Smt. Annam Sujatha Devi & Another
Nagesh Bheemapa
P. Ch. Nagabhushamba
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
