THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2643 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/defendants, challenging the order, dated 30.07.2022, passed in I.A.No.42 of 2022 in O.S.No.49 of 2022 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam (for short, 'Agency Court'), whereby, temporary injunction order is granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff restraining the petitioners/defendants, their henchmen, servants, agents or anybody on their behalf from anyway interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
2. I have heard Mr.Munnineni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, Mr.Saketh, learned counsel, representing Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that though both the parties have adduced their respective documentary evidence, the Agency Court has neither marked them nor referred to them while passing the order of injunction, which is 2 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No2643 of 2022 contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T.Bhopal Reddy and another Vs. K.R.Lakshmi Bai and another1. The respondent/plaintiff obtained injunction order basing on forged and fabricated documents. The respondent/plaintiff is a non-tribe and she is not entitled to get any right over the Forest land. Further, the revenue authorities have no right over the forest land situated in a schedule area. The Agency Court ignored these facts and granted injunction based on the ipse dixit of respondent/plaintiff and requested this Court to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Agency Court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff contended that in the absence of any rule in the Agency Rules for marking the documents and in view of non-application of Civil Rules of Practice to the proceedings before the Agency Court, the impugned order cannot be set aside on the simple ground that the Court below did not mark the documents which are required to be marked under Rules 60 and 115 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be set aside.
5. Undoubtedly, the Civil Rules of Practice have no application to the proceedings before the Agency Courts and they are only applicable to the Civil Courts in the State of Telangana, but the 1 1998 (1) ALD 770 (DB) 3 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No2643 of 2022 Agency Courts are marking the documents though Civil Rules of Practice are not applicable, by practice, to consider the documents. An identical question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the composite High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case between R.Parijatham and another Vs. M.Kameshwari and others2, wherein, it was held that failure to mark the documents is an error and set aside the order impugned therein and remanded the matter to the trial Court, directing the parties therein to maintain status quo till disposal of the petitions. It was further held as follows:
"...in order to come to a prima facie conclusion, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court should necessarily be able to locate the documents and know its contents to agree with either of the contentions; that nowhere it is envisaged that the case of the contesting parties can only be decided on the affidavits and not on any other material and that in the absence of any specific rule so far as marking of documents at the interlocutory stage is concerned, the Courts would not be justified in not giving any marking at all to such of the documents on which both sides would rely.
Regrettably, despite this authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench, some Courts have been ignoring the same and not marking the documents. The case on hand reflects one such instance. We, therefore, direct the High Court on administrative side to issue a Circular directing the Subordinate Courts to mark the documents filed by the parties to the interlocutory applications before deciding such applications."
6. In Amina Ayesha Vs. Model Constructions, rep. by its Managing Partner3, the composite High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held as follows: 2
2017 (5) ALD 348 (DB) 3 2014 (3) ALT 345 (DB) 4 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No2643 of 2022 "Though the Court below referred to certain documents, as we could see, the order under appeal does not even contain the Appendix of Evidence. Under the circumstances, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order under appeal came to be passed without appreciation of evidence on behalf of the respondent herein/petitioner in O.P.No.726 of 2013. Therefore, the order under appeal is liable to be set aside on that ground alone."
7. Further, in CRP Nos.7034 and 7328 of 2017 also, a single Judge of the composite High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, while passing the common order, dated 05.02.2018, observed that non-marking the documents by the Agency Courts is an irregularity and set aside the impugned order directing both the parties to maintain status quo.
8. Following the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in R.Parijatham's case (1 supra), Amina Ayesha's case (2 supra) and also Mahaveer Infoway Ltd., Hyderabad and another Vs. Tech Minfy Info Solutions LLP, Hyderabad4 and the order, dated 05.02.2018, of a single Judge CRP Nos.7304 of 2017 and 7328 of 2017, I am of the view that by practice, the Agency Courts are bound to mark the documents only for referral purpose while deciding the dispute between the parties at the time of passing order. But still, non-marking of documents and absence of Appendix of Evidence in an order is an irregularity.
4
2017 (5) ALD 351 (DB)
5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRP No2643 of 2022
9. In the light of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order, dated 30.07.2022, passed in I.A.No.42 of 2022 in O.S.No.49 of 2022 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam. The matter is remitted to the Agency Court with a direction to mark the documents filed by both the parties, hear both sides after such marking and dispose of the subject I.A.No.42 of 2022 afresh, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the disposal of the subject I.A.No.42 of 2022, status quo shall be maintained by both the parties. The parties as well as their respective counsel shall cooperate for disposal of the subject I.A.No.42 of 2022 by the Agency Court within the time stipulated above.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J 21st March, 2023 Bvv