Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 515 (AP)

Jaladi Prabhakar Rao v. Gudavarthi Kamala Kumari

2025-03-21

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2025
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Pamarthy Rathnakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision petition (S.R.) has been filed by the petitioner/third party, challenging the order of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.') in IA No.345 of 2023 in OS No.67 of 2023 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, on 15.03.2023. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, 1st respondent herein against the defendant, the 2nd respondent-Gudivada Municipality. The petitioner is not party in the said suit. The petitioner's case is that the plaintiff/1st respondent made encroachment in front of the petitioner's house, with respect to which the proceedings were initiated by the 2nd respondent-Gudivada Municipality by issuing notice under Section 192 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'). But inspite of the notice, the further proceedings were not being taken. So, the petitioner filed WP No.24395 of 2023, which was disposed of by order dated 27.02.2024, directing the Commissioner of the said Municipality to initiate necessary action, strictly in accordance with law, pursuant to the notice dated 07.03.2023 under Section 192 of the Act, if no interim order was passed by the Civil Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid OS No.67 of 2023, there was interim order dated 15.03.2023 but the same was not been brought to the notice of the Court. He submits that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the said interim order, after the petitioner filed CC No.2389 of 2024 against the 5th respondent-Commissioner, for disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court, as no further action was taken and in the said case, the defence of the interim order was taken. Consequently, the petitioner is filing the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 15.03.2023, granting temporary injunction in favour of the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent. 5. Office has raised an objection with respect to the entertainability of the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that such an order is appealable before the District Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the office objection deserves to be rejected. He submits that the petitioner being third party can maintain C.R.P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the office objection deserves to be rejected. He submits that the petitioner being third party can maintain C.R.P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance in the case of H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar, Civil Appeal Nos.1180-1181 of 2025, dated 29.01.2025, reported in 2025 INSC 121 , of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Referring to Para 33 of the said judgment, he submits that a person aggrieved from a judgment and decree, which prejudicially affect the rights of a person, who is not party in the suit, with a leave of the Court such person can challenge that order/decree. 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. In H. Anjanappa's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held as under in Para 43 : "43. The principles governing the grant of leave to appeal may be summarised as under : (i) Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC respectively provide for preferring an appeal from an original decree or decree in appeal respectively; (ii) The said provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal; (iii) However, it a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the Court that he falls within the category of an aggrieved person; (iv) It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court : (v) A person aggrieved, to file an appeal, must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned; (vi) The expression "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; (vii) It would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment; and (viii) Ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings." 9. The principles governing the granting of leave as summarised in Para 43 of the judgment supra, clearly show that those principles are for granting of leave to appeal. It refers to the appeals under Sections 96 and 100 C.P.C. The appeals under the aforesaid provisions are filed against the decree of the Trial Court under Section 96 C.P.C. and against the appellate decree under Section 100 C.P.C. 10. The present case is not a case of an appeal filed against the decree or order. The challenge is to the order of temporary injunction in pending suit, in civil revision petition. The office has rightly raised the objection that the order impugned in the present civil revision petition is appealable. If the petitioner is not party and feels aggrieved, he may, by taking recourse to the judgment in H. Anjanappa's case (supra), may prefer an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C., alongwith an application seeking leave to appeal. 11. The civil revision petition would not be entertainable, in view of the availability of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal under C.P.C. and particularly, when such appeal would lie before the District Court and not before the High Court. 12. The suit is still pending, in which, as submitted, the petitioner is not party. His grievance is that he is the person aggrieved as the encroachment has been made in front of his property. If it is so, this Court is of the further view that the petitioner if so advised, may have the remedy to seek his impleadment in the pending suit and apply for vacation of the order of temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court. 13. With the aforesaid observations, maintaining the office objection, the civil revision petition (S.R.) is dismissed but not on merits of the matter. 14. No order as to costs. 15. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.