G Surender Reddy, Mahaboobnagar ... vs G Ram Reddy, Mahaboobnagar Dist ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6110 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
                  C.R.P.No.4344 of 2015
ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated

01.05.2015 in CMA No.05 of 2014 on the file of the Senior

Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

2. C.M.A.No.5 of 2014 was filed by the defendants

assailing the order dated 27.10.2014 in IA No.55 of 2013 in

OS No.33 of 2013 on the file of the learned Junior Civil

Judge's Court, Nagarkurnool, wherein the learned Judge

has allowed the application filed under Order-39 Rules 1 &

2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.')

against the defendants 1 to 4 restraining them from

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the plaintiff over the land admeasuring Ac.2.12 guntas in

Survey No.330/AA6 situated at Manthati Village,

Nagarkurnool Mandal and District.

3. As per the orders impugned in CMA No.5 of

2014, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool has set

aside the orders passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge

AVR,J CRP No.4344 of 2015

in IA No.55 of 2013 and vacated the temporary injunction

granted in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the

said orders in CMA No.5 of 2014, the present Civil Revision

Petition is filed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the revision

petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel for the

respondents/defendants. The submissions made on either

side have received due consideration of this Court.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as

arrayed in the original suit.

6. The plaintiff has filed the original suit for

perpetual injunction, along with the original suit IA No.55

of 2013 was filed for ad-interim injunction and during

pendency of the original suit on appreciation of the

documents filed on behalf of both the parties as in Exs.P.1

to P.10 for the plaintiff and Exs.R.1 to R.17 for the

defendants allowed the said application granting temporary

injunction restraining the defendants and their men from

interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit

schedule property. However, in CMA No.5 of 2014, the

AVR,J CRP No.4344 of 2015

temporary injunction order dated 27.10.2014 passed in IA

No.55 of 2013 was set aside on 01.05.2015.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil

Revision Petition is filed before this Court and as per the

proceedings dated 20.01.2016, the order dated 01.05.2015

in CMA No.5 of 2015 was suspended and the interim

suspension granted on 20.01.2016 is still in force.

Accordingly, the temporary injunction granted as per the

order dated 27.10.2014 in IA No.55 of 2013 in OS No.33 of

2013 is in force, in view of interim suspension of the order

impugned dated 01.05.2015 in CMA No.5 of 2014 as

indicated above.

8. Be it stated that the trial Court has not believed

Exs.R.6 and R.7 with an observation that the proceedings

are conducted by the Revenue Inspector and the learned

counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment between

Radehy and another Vs. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh

and others1 wherein it was held that the report of the Naib

Tahsaildar is not a public document of the nature referred

AIR 1990 Allahabad 175

AVR,J CRP No.4344 of 2015

to under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and

is not admissible in evidence, since it only contents the

result of investigation it cannot be said to be an entry in

the public or official book. However, the Court below has

placed heavy reliance on Exs.P.3 and P.4 which are pahani

for the year 2012-13 and rythu passbook and as per the

Ex.P.3 certified copy of pahani for the year 2012-13, the

possession of the plaintiff is recorded in respect of the suit

schedule property.

9. Though an application as in Ex.R.6 was

submitted by the defendants and panchnama was

conducted as in Ex.R.7 and subsequent entries were not

made and the Court below has categorically held that as on

the date of filing of the original suit, the plaintiff is found in

exclusive possession of the suit schedule property and

entitled for temporary injunction. But, the learned Senior

Civil Judge has not considered the said document Ex.P.3

stating that there is no mention of the year on the said

pahani, stating it cannot be said that it relates to the year

2012-13.

AVR,J CRP No.4344 of 2015

10. On careful perusal of the documents filed by

the plaintiff would show that the plaintiff was in possession

of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the

suit. That apart, in view of the orders in IA No.55 of 2013,

the possession of the plaintiff was protected and again

immediately after filing the Civil Revision Petition, the order

impugned dated 01.05.2015 in CMA No.5 of 2014 was

suspended, thereby the orders in IA No.55 of 2013 are

continuing till date. Thus, the plaintiff is enjoying the ad-

interim injunction from the time of filing of the suit, except

for the interregnum period from the date of order impugned

in CMA No.5 of 2014 till the date of suspension of the same

by this Court on 20.01.2016.

11. Even otherwise, as per the Case Status

Information, issues were framed in the original suit way

back and it is being listed under the caption "for trial" only

since 30.05.2017 without there being any progress. This

original suit relates to the year 2013 ripen for trial,

accordingly the Court below shall make every endeavour

for expeditious disposal of the original suit, which is almost

pending for the last one decade.

AVR,J CRP No.4344 of 2015

12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is

allowed. The order impugned in CMA No.5 of 2014 dated

01.05.2015 is hereby set aside, confirming the order dated

27.10.2014 in IA No.55 of 2013 in OS No.33 of 2013 on the

file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

Considering the fact that the original suit pending since

2013, the learned Judge of the trial Court shall make every

endeavour for expeditious disposal of the original suit

within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this

order. Both the parties to the suit shall cooperate with the

trial Court for expeditious disposal as directed. However,

in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as

to costs.

Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this

civil revision petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.

Date: 23.11.2022 Isn