Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Narra Lokanadha Rao, vs Rambukta Satyanarayana, on 14 February, 2024
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
AMARAVATI [ 3327 ]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1118 OF 2022
Between:
1. Narra Lokanadha Rao,, S/o. Madhava Rao, Aged about 64 years, C/o.
NL Rao Surgicals, D.No.11-3-57, Durga Ashramam Road, Ganagala
Veethi, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. Rambukta Satyanarayana, S/o. Pothanna Aged about 54 years, R/o.
D.No.11-3-62, Durga Ashramam Road, Ganagala Veethi,
Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that
in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court
may be pleased topleased to allow the revision by setting aside the
order of VII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam passed in
CMA.No.8/2018 dated 21.04.2022 and confirm the order and decreetal
order of the VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam passed in
IA.No.970/2017 in OS.No.1193/2017 dated 04.01.2018 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the
order and decreetal order of the VII Addl. District Judge,
Visakhapatnam passed in CMA.No.8/2018 dated 21.04.2022 and
pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. O M R LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondents: S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1118 OF 2022
ORDER :
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.
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. 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. 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. 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 high-
handedly 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. 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., 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. 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 1,
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
2005 (3) ALD 545 (DB)
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Therefore, this clearly shows non-
compliance 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.
There shall be no order as to costs of the C.R.P.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in
the C.R.P. shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
14 .2.2024
DRK
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1118 OF 2022
14 .2.2024
DRK
