Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 997 (TS)

Madineni Subba Rao v. Jamalapudi Venkateswara Rao

2025-09-09

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
Order : J.SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed invoking the provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem in I.A.No.316 of 2024 in O.S.No.326 of 2024, where under temporary injunction application filed by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed in respect of the suit schedule property. 2. Heard Sri P.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Krishna Kishore, learned counsel for respondent. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed by the Agent to Government. Brief facts of the case: 4. The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.326 of 2024 before the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.400/33/176 situated at Aswapuram revenue village and Mandal. The plaintiff has inherited the said property from his forefathers. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.316 of 2024 for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. In the said application, the defendant filed counter denying the averments made by the plaintiff. Learned Agent to Government allowed the said application and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff by its order dated 28.05.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 5. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant: 5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Agent to Government, without properly considering the contentions of the defendant in I.A.No.316 of 2024, granted interim injunction without assigning any reasons. He further submitted that the plaintiff is not having any semblance of right or interest over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff obtained revenue entries in his name by misrepresenting the facts before the revenue authorities. Even according to the plaintiff, he purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas in the very same survey number from the brother of defendant. 5.2 He further submitted that the defendant filed suit in O.S.No.421 of 2022 before the Special Assistant Agent to Government and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam against his brother for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.0-20 guntas covered by Sy.No.400/33 and the said suit was decreed on 13.12.2022. 5.2 He further submitted that the defendant filed suit in O.S.No.421 of 2022 before the Special Assistant Agent to Government and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam against his brother for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.0-20 guntas covered by Sy.No.400/33 and the said suit was decreed on 13.12.2022. Thereafter, the defendant filed E.P. No.5 of 2023 seeking police protection and the same was allowed on 28.04.2023. When the police failed to provide police aid, the defendant approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No.14069 of 2023 and the same was disposed of on 10.01.2024. The above said documents were placed before the learned Agent to Government, however, learned Agent to Government without considering the same, allowed I.A. No.316 of 2024. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Agent to Government is contrary to the material on record and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff: 6.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent vehemently contended that the subject property claimed in the present suit in O.S.No.326 of 2024 and the property claimed by the defendant in O.S. No.421 of 2022 are different and distinct. Basing upon the decree passed in O.S.No.421 of 2022, the defendant is not entitled to interfere with the schedule property in O.S. No.326 of 2024. He further submitted that the learned Agent to Government after considering the contentions of the respective parties and also after due verification of the documents, which are filed by the parties, rightly allowed the I.A. by giving cogent reasons. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Agent to Government. Analysis: 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.326 of 2024 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property i.e. agriculture land to an extent of Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.400/33/176. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.316 of 2024 for grant of ad interim injunction invoking the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. read with Rule 42 of the Telangana Agency Rules, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’). Along with the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.316 of 2024 for grant of ad interim injunction invoking the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. read with Rule 42 of the Telangana Agency Rules, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’). The specific case of the plaintiff is that he has inherited the suit schedule property from his forefathers and his name was entered in the revenue records and pattadar passbook was also issued in his favour. The defendant without having any right over the suit schedule property is trying to interfere with the suit schedule property. 8. The case of defendant is that the plaintiff had purchased only 0-20 guntas of land from his own brother and that the defendant himself had earlier filed suit in O.S.No.421 of 2022 against his own brother, M.Rambabu, before the Special Assistant Agent to Government and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam for grant of perpetual injunction and the said suit was decreed on 13.12.2022. Subsequently, the defendant filed E.P. No.5 of 2023 seeking police protection and the said E.P. was allowed on 28.04.2023. As the police failed to provide protection, the defendant approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No.14069 of 2023 seeking police protection and the same was disposed of on 10.01.2024. Despite the said orders, the plaintiff without having any manner of right is interfering in respect of the suit schedule property. 9. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that the suit schedule property covered in O.S. No.421 of 2022 and the suit schedule property mentioned in O.S. No.326 of 2024 are different. 10. It is pertinent to mention that the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Agent to Government reveals that in the analysis portion, instead of taking an independent evaluation, the learned Agent to Government has reiterated the averments and also the submissions made by the respective parties without assigning any reasons, allowed the I.A. and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 11. It is pertinent to mention that as per the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. read with Rule 42 of the Agency Rules, the learned Agent to Government ought to have given reasons for granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Agent to Government is adjudicating the proceedings as a civil Court. 11. It is pertinent to mention that as per the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. read with Rule 42 of the Agency Rules, the learned Agent to Government ought to have given reasons for granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Agent to Government is adjudicating the proceedings as a civil Court. Whether granting or rejecting the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., the Court ought to have recorded the reasons especially for granting injunction, the party has to satisfy the three essential ingredients, namely: (i) whether the plaintiff is in prima facie possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit, (ii) whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, and (iii) whether he would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted. In the present case, while adjudicating I.A. No.316 of 2024, the learned Agent to Government has not assigned any reasons, as mandated under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. r/w Rule 42 of the Rules and the same is contrary to law. It is settled principles of law that quasi-judicial authorities or judicial authorities or administrative authorities while passing orders reasons must be recorded. 12. In Gaddipati Sambrajyam and another v Panguluri Mahalakshmamma and others , (1995) 1 ALD 358 , the erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh held that while deciding the applications under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of require satisfaction of three conditions: (1) a prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience in favour of the applicant, and (3) risk of irreparable injury if refused. 13. In Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi, (2024) 11 SCC 351 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of appellate Court interference in matters of temporary injunctions. The case arose from a family property dispute where the trial court had granted an injunction under Order XXXIX of C.P.C. restraining alienation of the suit property, finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiffs. The Gujarat High Court, however, set aside the injunction, holding that the trial court had virtually decreed the suit. The Gujarat High Court, however, set aside the injunction, holding that the trial court had virtually decreed the suit. The Supreme Court restored the injunction, reiterating that appellate Courts under Order 43 CPC cannot substitute their own discretion for that of the trial court unless the latter’s order suffers from perversity, arbitrariness, mala fides or ignorance of settled law. It reaffirmed that for grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience, and that no mini-trial should be undertaken at this stage. The Court also held that, notwithstanding the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 injunctions may still be necessary to prevent pendente lite transfers that could create third-party equities and complicate the litigation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the injunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property. 14. It is also relevant to mention that this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.1234 of 2020 dated 28.07.2021, while considering the provisions of Rules 51, 60 and 115 of the Civil Rules of Practice, specifically held that even in Interlocutory Applications, the Court has to refer the documents filed by the respective parties i.e., plaintiff and defendant, as ‘P’ series and ‘B’ series. In the case on hand, learned Agent to Government has not mentioned the documents filed by the parties while allowing the application. 15. For the foregoing reasons, while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, holds that the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Agent to Government in I.A.No.316 of 2024 in O.S.No.326 of 2024 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the said order is set aside and the learned Agent to Government is directed to decide the application in I.A.No.316 of 2024 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to both the parties, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.