Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 252 (AP)

Narra Lokanadha Rao S/o Madhava Rao v. Rambukta Satyanarayana S/o Pothanna

2024-02-14

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2024
ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 21.04.2022 passed in C.M.A. No. 8 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 1193 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant and his men from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 970 of 2017 in the said suit seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit stating that plaint schedule property is his absolute property, devolved from his ancestors. For the last 20 years, the plaintiff and his family are residing in the said property constructing two ACC sheets roofed houses on a basement. D. Nos. 11-3-62/2 and 11-3-62/3 and Assessment Nos. 1089008597 and 1089002285 were given by the Municipality. Respondent/plaintiff has been paying taxes to the municipality. Electrical service connection SC No. 11252-8B005 003822 has been provided to the same. He constructed an RCC slabbed Sri Hanuman temple at the northern side of the house in the schedule property and is offering poojas regularly. In 2009, when A. Pydayya tried to trespass into the schedule property, respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 22 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam and the said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 19.03.2009. Surveyor appointed by the Tahsildar, after survey, gave endorsement dated 19.11.2011 stating that respondent/ plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property, and as per the endorsement, the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of 315 square yards of land in T.S. No. 162, Ward No. 23 of Bheemunipatnam village. When the respondent/plaintiff made constructions in the plaint schedule property by removing old ACC sheets of D. No. 11-3-62/3 for constructing an RCC slabbed house on the old foundation, on 25.10.2017, the petitioner/defendant, without any manner of right whatsoever, tried to trespass into by obstructing the construction by the respondent/plaintiff. But, the illegal acts were resisted by the respondent/plaintiff and his neighbours. On 07.11.2017, again, the petitioner/defendant along with his henchmen tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property and created nuisance, but the said illegal acts were resisted by the respondent/plaintiff. But, the illegal acts were resisted by the respondent/plaintiff and his neighbours. On 07.11.2017, again, the petitioner/defendant along with his henchmen tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property and created nuisance, but the said illegal acts were resisted by the respondent/plaintiff. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction and the I.A. seeking temporary injunction. 4. The petitioner/defendant filed counter denying the case of the respondent/plaintiff and stating inter alia that Hanuman Temple is situated in the extreme north near municipal road, and it is not a temple but is a recent temporary construction to raise sentiments. An extent of 300 to 400 square yards is situated in between the alleged temple and the two houses. Company is the absolute owner of the property. No survey, as averred in the petition, took place. No schedule is attached to the alleged endorsement dated 19.11.2011, of the Tahsildar. Plaint schedule as described does not exist on ground. The two houses mentioned in the schedule are situated to the east of the property of the company. The houses, one in an extent of 130 square yards and another in an extent of 102 square yards, are facing opposite to each other and separated by rasta left by the company while constructing compound wall to its property. The plaintiff illegally occupied that site recently and constructed those two temporary structures. Originally, the land in T.D. No. 162 belonged to Maha Rajah of Vizianagaram. In a partition among his legal heirs, the property in T.S. No. 162 fell to the share of Pusapati Alak Gajapathi Raju S/o P.V.G. Raju. He entered into an agreement with the company M/s. Bheemili Builders Private Limited for sale of the entire property and executed a sale deed through Court for part of the property in T.S. No. 162. Accordingly, the company became owner of both T.S. Nos. 161 and 162 of Bheemunipatnam and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of all, including the plaintiff, since the date of the purchase. Plaint schedule property is part and parcel of property purchased, under a registered sale agreement-cum-G.P.A. dated 18.05.2007, by Ambedkar Housing and Estates which purchased an extent of 2100 square yards in T.S. No. 161 under the said registered document and was in possession of the same. Plaint schedule property is part and parcel of property purchased, under a registered sale agreement-cum-G.P.A. dated 18.05.2007, by Ambedkar Housing and Estates which purchased an extent of 2100 square yards in T.S. No. 161 under the said registered document and was in possession of the same. Subsequently, a registered sale deed is executed in the name of the company on 27.09.2012 and since then the company is in possession of the property. The properties of Ambedkar Housing and Estates were merged with Bheemili Builders Private Limited as both are one and the same. When one Appikonda Pydinaidu and others tried to interfere with the property, the firm filed Original Suit No. 1723 of 2007 before the trial Court and the said suit was decreed on merits on 15.07.2009. On 25.10.2017, the company constructed a compound wall on the eastern side and southern side of the property covered under sale deed dated 27.9.2012 by removing the wall constructed by Perla Raja Rao to safeguard the property from land grabbers and affixed company’s name board, by leaving 5 feet width passage running from east to west and takes a turn towards north to south. When the plaintiff along with his men tried to obstruct construction of the compound wall on that day, the defendant gave a police report. Property in T.S. No. 162 was also purchased by the company subsequently and N.L. Rao Surgical Centre is being run in T.S. No. 162. On 22.11.2017, defendant received notice in I.A. No. 900 of 2017 in O.S. No. 1149 of 2017, and came to know that defendant is not a party to the said suit. On 02.12.2017 at about 10 AM, the defendant went to the plaint schedule property and noticed that the compound wall was demolished and a flexi was affixed with the name of the plaintiff. When CC TV footage was verified, it was noticed that the plaintiff and his family members highhandedly demolished the eastern side compound wall at 5.30 AM and the demolition continued for one hour. After going through the flexi nailed to the southern wall of the company, defendant noticed that the present suit was filed. When defendant gave a police complaint, the plaintiff handed over copy of order of status quo in I.A. No. 970 of 2017 to the defendant, which reveals that the trial Court directed to maintain status quo till 24.11.2017. After going through the flexi nailed to the southern wall of the company, defendant noticed that the present suit was filed. When defendant gave a police complaint, the plaintiff handed over copy of order of status quo in I.A. No. 970 of 2017 to the defendant, which reveals that the trial Court directed to maintain status quo till 24.11.2017. The defendant did not receive any copies of the documents, including plaint, petition, schedule, affidavit in the suit and the I.A. , which is non-compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 (a) CPC. Plaintiff played fraud on the Court and without compliance of the above provision, illegally and high-handedly demolished the walls constructed by the company secretly after obtaining order of status quo from the trial Court. Ex.B3 copy of FIR along with report dated 25.10.2017 lodged by the plaintiff, goes to show that the company is in possession of the property. There is no prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant. Inspite of status quo order, the plaintiff demolished compound wall constructed by the company. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Before the trial Court, Exs.A1 to A36 documents were marked on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff and Exs.B1 to B7 documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner/defendant. 6. The trial Court, vide Order dated 04.01.2018, dismissed the I.A. Challenging the same, the respondent/plaintiff preferred C.M.A. No. 8 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appellate Court, vide the impugned order dated 21.04.2022, allowed the said CMA, setting aside the Order passed by the trial Court and granting temporary injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the respondent/plaintiff till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present CRP came to be filed. 7. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner/defendant contended that the respondent/plaintiff failed to establish the necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction viz. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner/defendant contended that the respondent/plaintiff failed to establish the necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction viz. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. He submitted that except stating that plaint schedule property is his ancestral property, no document showing the prima facie title has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff, whereas the petitioner/defendant acquired the suit schedule property by a registered document, and the petitioner/defendant and his predecessors-in-title have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights. He submitted that having obtained ex-parte order of status quo from the trial Court, without complying the mandatory provision under Order XXXIX Rule 3 (a) CPC, the respondent/plaintiff highhandedly demolished the compound wall constructed by the petitioner/defendant on 02.12.2017, which is evident from the CC TV footage. He submitted that there is no mention of house number in the demand notices filed by the respondent/plaintiff; that Ex.B3-copy of FIR along with police report dated 24.10.2017 lodged by the respondent/plaintiff would go to show that the respondent/plaintiff was not in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, and the balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of the respondent/defendant, and in case temporary injunction is granted, the respondent/ defendant would sustain irreparable loss, and the appellate Court has not considered these aspects in right perspective and granted temporary injunction, by reversing the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, he prayed to allow the C.R.P. 9. Hence, he prayed to allow the C.R.P. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of respondent/plaintiff, who established his possession by the date of filing of the suit by filing the receipts for payment of house tax, water tax and electricity charges; that the respondent/plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for the last 20 years and constructed two ACC sheet roofed houses, but the petitioner/defendant, without manner of any right, tried to encroach into the schedule property; that considering the documents filed by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellate Court rightly reversed the order passed by the trial Court refusing to grant temporary injunction and the same needs no interference by this Court. 10. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact, of an inferior Court or Tribunal, if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion, which the Court or Tribunal has come to, or, in other words, it is a finding which was perverse in law. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in, to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. However, this Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probabilities, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. It cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power. In short, as regards the findings of fact of inferior Court, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is limited only to the extent of examining whether the subordinate Court keeps itself within the bounds of its authority in reaching a finding of fact. 11. Grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is covered by three principles viz. 11. Grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is covered by three principles viz. (1) if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case (2) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e. it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and (3) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. With regard to prima facie case, it is a case to be made out by proper and sufficient material. The court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing and that on the facts before it, there is a probability that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The material available to the Court at the hearing of the application, must satisfy that the success at the trial is probable and impending danger must be eminent and impressive. Coming to the balance of convenience, the Court must compare the amount of mischief done or threatened to the plaintiff and must weigh the same against inflicted by the injunction upon the defendant and see that the comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to arise from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it. Coming to the irreparable injury, the injury must be material and substantial one and not adequately reparable in damages. It cannot be measured by any known pecuniary standard. One of the basic principles on which injunction should be issued is that plaintiff must show that an injunction is necessary to protect him from irreparable injury and that mere inconvenience is not enough. Possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit is sine qua non for grant of injunction. 12. One of the basic principles on which injunction should be issued is that plaintiff must show that an injunction is necessary to protect him from irreparable injury and that mere inconvenience is not enough. Possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit is sine qua non for grant of injunction. 12. It is equally well settled that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case by adducing sufficient evidence and that the plaintiff cannot succeed on the weaknesses of the case put forward by the defendant in view of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents reported in Syed Fahim Arif and Another v. Rahmatunnisa Begum and Another, 2005 (3) ALD 545 (DB) wherein it was held thus: “In M.M.B. Catholicos v. M.P. Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 , it was held that the plaintiff in ejectment suit must succeed on the strength of his own title and this can be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus that is on him irrespective of whether the defendant has proved his onus or not and a mere destruction of the respondents/defendants title in the absence of establishment of his own title carries the plaintiff nowhere. In Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri, MANU/SC/0295/1964, it was held that in a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff has to succeed or fail on the title he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title, the suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property. Strong relience also was placed on S.M.M. Kunhi Koya Thangal v. B.J.P. Dharas Committee and Ors. 2004 SAR (Civil) 832, where the Apex Court held that the cardinal principle in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the strength of title is that the plaintiff can succeed only on establishing his title to the suit property and the plaintiff cannot succeed on the weakness of the case put forward by the defendant.” 13. In the case on hand, the respondent/plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 1193 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant and his men from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by respondent/plaintiff. In the case on hand, the respondent/plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 1193 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant and his men from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by respondent/plaintiff. He filed I.A. No. 970 of 2017 in the said suit seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The plaint schedule property is shown as Two ACC sheets houses, bearing D. No. 11-3-62/2 & 11-3-62/3 and house tax Assessment Nos. 1089008597 and 1089002285; Electrical SC No. 11252-8B005 003822 and Water Tax assessment No. 1089002850 and also Hanuman Temple in RCC slabbed room, all in an extent of 315 square yards covered by T.S. No. 161 of Bheemunipatnam village and mandal, Ward No. 23 situated at Durgashram area, Old Bank road, Bheemunipatnam municipality, Visakhapatnam district. Initially, the trial Court granted an order of status quo as on the date of filing of the petition. 14. Respondent/plaintiff claims that the plaint schedule property is his ancestral property and for the last 20 years, the plaintiff and his family are residing in the said property constructing two ACC sheets roofed houses on a basement. D. Nos. 11-3-62/2 and 11-3-62/3 and Assessment Nos. 1089008597 and 1089002285 were given by the Municipality. He has been paying property and water taxes to the municipality and also paying electricity consumption charges. According to the respondent/plaintiff, he made constructions in the plaint schedule property by removing old ACC sheets of D. No. 11-3-62/3 for constructing an RCC slabbed house on the old foundation. On 25.10.2017, the petitioner/defendant, without any manner of right whatsoever, tried to trespass into by obstructing the construction by the respondent/plaintiff. But, the illegal acts were resisted by the respondent/plaintiff and his neighbours. On 07.11.2017, again, the petitioner/defendant along with his henchmen tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property and created nuisance, but the said illegal acts were resisted by the respondent/ plaintiff. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction and the I.A. seeking temporary injunction. 15. Whereas, according to the defendant, originally, the land in T.S. No. 162 belongs to Maha Rajah of Vizianagaram. In a partition among his legal heirs, the property in T.S. No. 162 fell to the share of Pusapati Alak Gajapathi Raju S/o P.V.G. Raju. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction and the I.A. seeking temporary injunction. 15. Whereas, according to the defendant, originally, the land in T.S. No. 162 belongs to Maha Rajah of Vizianagaram. In a partition among his legal heirs, the property in T.S. No. 162 fell to the share of Pusapati Alak Gajapathi Raju S/o P.V.G. Raju. He entered into an agreement with the company M/s. Bheemili Builders Private Limited for sale of the entire property and executed a sale deed through Court for part of the property in T.S. No. 162. Accordingly, the company became owner of both T.S. Nos. 161 and 162 of Bheemunipatnam and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of all, including the plaintiff, since the date of purchase. Plaint schedule property is part and parcel of property purchased, under a registered sale agreement-cum-G.P.A., dated 18.05.2007, by Ambedkar Housing and Estates which purchased an extent of 2100 square yards in T.S. No. 161 under the said registered document and was in possession of the same. Subsequently, a registered sale deed is executed in the name of the company on 27.09.2012 and since then the company is in possession of the property. The properties of Ambedkar Housing and Estates were merged with Bheemili Builders Private Limited as both are one and the same. It is the further case of petitioner/defendant that on 25.10.2017, the company constructed a compound wall on the eastern side and southern side of the property covered under sale deed dated 27.9.2012 by removing the wall constructed by Perla Raja Rao to safeguard the property from land grabbers and affixed company’s name board, by leaving 5 feet wide passage running from east to west and taking a turn towards north to south. When the plaintiff along with his men tried to obstruct construction of the compound wall on that day, the defendant gave a police report. According to the defendant, on 02.12.2017 at about 10 AM, when the defendant went to the plaint schedule property, he noticed that the compound wall was demolished and a flexi was affixed with the name of the plaintiff. When CC TV footage was verified, it was noticed that the plaintiff and his family members highhandedly demolished the eastern side compound wall at 5.30 AM and the demolition continued for one hour. When CC TV footage was verified, it was noticed that the plaintiff and his family members highhandedly demolished the eastern side compound wall at 5.30 AM and the demolition continued for one hour. After going through the flexi nailed to the southern wall of the company, defendant noticed that the present suit was filed. On 22.11.2017, defendant received notice in I.A. No. 900 of 2017 in O.S. No. 1149 of 2017, and came to know that defendant is not a party to the said suit. When defendant gave a police complaint, the plaintiff handed over copy of order of status quo in I.A. No. 970 of 2017 to the defendant, which reveals that the trial Court directed to maintain status quo till 24.11.2017. The defendant did not receive any copies of the documents, including plaint, petition, schedule, affidavit in the suit and the I.A. According to the petitioner/defendant, there is non-compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 (a) CPC and the respondent/plaintiff played fraud on the Court, and without compliance of the above provision, illegally and high-handedly demolished the walls constructed by the company secretly after obtaining order from the trial Court. According to the petitioner/defendant, copy of the police report dated 25.10.2017 lodged by the plaintiff goes to show that the company is in possession of the property and inspite of status quo order, the plaintiff demolished compound wall constructed by the company, and there is no prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant. 16. The three ingredients that are to be established by a person seeking the relief of temporary injunction are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. As regards the documents filed by the respondent/plaintiff, Ex.A1 is copy of judgment and decree in O.S. No. 22 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam, dated 19.03.2009. It is an ex-parte decree passed against one Appikonda Pydayya. A perusal of the schedule in the decree shows that it is in respect of D. No. 11-3-62/2 covered by T.S. No. 162 with Assessment No. 1089008065 and Ward No. 17. Whereas, the plaint schedule property consists of D. Nos. 11-3-62/2 & 11-3-62/3; T.S. No. 161 with Assessment Nos. 1089008597 and 1089002285 and ward No. 23. Therefore, the Assessment number, ward number and T.S. numbers are different in both the documents. Whereas, the plaint schedule property consists of D. Nos. 11-3-62/2 & 11-3-62/3; T.S. No. 161 with Assessment Nos. 1089008597 and 1089002285 and ward No. 23. Therefore, the Assessment number, ward number and T.S. numbers are different in both the documents. Further, the injunction granted is against one Appikonda Pydaiah and the petitioner/defendant is not a party to the said suit. 17. Ex.A2 is endorsement dated 19.11.2011 issued by the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam which states that the schedule land in T.S. No. 162 Ward No. 23 of Bheemunipatnam village and mandal is an extent of 315 square yards, as per the report of the Mandal Surveyor. No separate schedule is annexed to the said endorsement to correlate the same with the plaint schedule property. 18. Ex.A3 is copy of receipt dated 25.10.2017 issued by the Station House Officer, Bheemili police station for the report lodged by the respondent/plaintiff. Whereas Ex.B3-copy of FIR No. 320 of 2017 of Bhimunipatnam Bhimili police station dated 25.10.2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 489 IPC, along with police report dated 25.10.2017 lodged by the respondent/plaintiff goes to show that on 25.10.2017, the respondent/plaintiff was dispossessed from the schedule premises illegally by the petitioner/defendant and his men and it is prayed to restore the said land to him. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in the month of November, 2017 stating that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and on 7.11.2017 the defendant and his men tried to trespass into the schedule property, and obtained order of status quo. The respondent/plaintiff suppressed the fact of his dispossession on 25.10.2017 and lodging of police report basing on which FIR No. 320 of 2017 of Bhimili police station was registered. 19. In Exs.A5 to A20-house tax demand notices and receipts for payment of property and water tax, Assessment No. 1089008065 is mentioned in some of the documents and Assessment No. 1089008597 is mentioned in some of the documents. Water Tax Assessment No. 1089002850 is mentioned. In Exs.A21 to A36-Electricity bills, SC No. 116680B005 003822 is mentioned. Though these documents correlate to the plaint schedule property, in view of the fact that even according to the respondent/plaintiff, as per Ex.B3, he was dispossessed from the plaint schedule property on 25.10.2017 itself. Water Tax Assessment No. 1089002850 is mentioned. In Exs.A21 to A36-Electricity bills, SC No. 116680B005 003822 is mentioned. Though these documents correlate to the plaint schedule property, in view of the fact that even according to the respondent/plaintiff, as per Ex.B3, he was dispossessed from the plaint schedule property on 25.10.2017 itself. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff failed to establish his lawful possession of the schedule property as on the date of the suit and that his possession is invaded or threatened to be invaded by the petitioner/defendant without any title whatsoever. It is settled proposition that a person seeking the injunction, must be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and also that he is legally entitled to be in possession. Therefore, the alleged cause of action in paragraph No. III (b) of the plaint that on 07.11.2017, the defendant along with his henchmen tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property and created nuisance, etc. appear to be invented for the purpose of the present Suit. Prima facie, there is no cause of action for filing the suit for injunction simplicitor. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for grant of temporary injunction. 20. Coming to the documents filed by the petitioner/defendant, Ex.B7 is copy of registered sale deed-cum-G.P.A. dated 18.05.2007 in the name of the petitioner/defendant. Ex.B1 is copy of police report lodged by the petitioner/defendant against the respondent/plaintiff for the alleged obstruction caused by the latter on 25.10.2017 when the former was constructing the compound wall. Exs.B2 is photographs along with C.D. evidencing that the petitioner/defendant constructed a compound wall around the property. Ex.B5 is C.D. filed to establish his contention that the respondent/plaintiff and his men demolished the compound wall on 02.12.2017 after obtaining order of status quo from the trial Court. Ex.B6 is served summons in I.A. No. 900 of 2017 in O.S. No. 1149 of 2017. 21. Ex.B4 is envelop which reveals that the respondent/plaintiff sent copy of interim order of status quo to the petitioner/defendant without enclosing copies of petition and the documents relied upon by him. It is not the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he sent copies of petition and the documents relied upon by him, along with copy of the interim order, to the address of the petitioner/defendant. It is not the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he sent copies of petition and the documents relied upon by him, along with copy of the interim order, to the address of the petitioner/defendant. Therefore, this clearly shows noncompliance of the mandatory provision under Order XXXIX Rule 3 (a) CPC. 22. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the respondent/plaintiff failed to establish his possession of the plaint schedule property by the date of the suit and also the essential ingredients which are sine qua non for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court, considering these aspects, rightly refused to exercise its discretion and dismissed the petition for grant of temporary injunction. The appellate Court has nor appreciated the material on record in right perspective and granted temporary injunction. The said order is not in consonance with the well established principles for grant of temporary injunction and the same is liable to be set aside. 23. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order dated 21.04.2022 passed in C.M.A. No. 8 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is set aside. The Order dated 04.01.2018 passed in I.A. No. 970 of 2017 in O.S. No. 1193 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam is confirmed. 24. There shall be no order as to costs of the C.R.P. 25. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the C.R.P. shall stand closed.