Telangana High Court
Chakka Narayana Rao Ananta ... vs Yedla Venkateswar Rao on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
1
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.427 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, is filed by the petitioner/defendant, challenging the order
dated 20.04.2022 passed in I.A.No.229 of 2022 in O.S.No.241 of
2022 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent
to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam.
2. Heard Sri Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for the
petitioner/defendant, Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel
for respondent/plaintiff and perused the record.
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit in
O.S.No.281 of 2022 under Section 38 of Specific Relief Act read with
Rule 44 of the Agency Rules, against the petitioner/defendant
seeking perpetual injunction along with subject I.A.No.229 of 2022
seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants or any
other persons who are claiming through him, from interfering with
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, till the
disposal of the main suit.
4. The Court below, vide impugned order dated 20.09.2022
granted ex-parte and temporary injunction restraining the
petitioner/defendant , his henchmen, servants, agents or anybody
on his behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed this Civil Revision
Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would
submit that the order under challenge is non-speaking order,
cryptic, bereft of reasons and do withstand the test of judicial
scrutiny. It is against the scope of intent of Order XXXIX Rule 2 of
C.P.C. Without verifying the actual possession of the petition
schedule land as on the date of filing of the subject suit, the Court
below granted an ex parte temporary injunction. The impugned
order is against the spirit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi1 and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge
and allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
supported the impugned order and submitted that a well reasoned
order was passed by the Court below. Only in order to protect the
possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the petition schedule
property, temporary injunction was granted. The order under
challenge warrants no interference and ultimately prayed to dismiss
the Civil Revision Petition.
(1993) 3 SSC 161
7. The impugned order, dated 20.09.2022 reads as
follows:
"The respondent/defendant their henchmen, servants,
agents or anybody on their behalf do hereby restrained
from in anyway interfering with the petitioner/plaintiff
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property till further orders."
8. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that it is
cryptic and bereft of reasons. It is incumbent upon the Court below,
to advert to the pleadings, contentions, points involved and the legal
position, if any, applicable, and then to record evidence supported
by reasons on the points involved in the application. It is trite to
observe that the need to give reasons has been held to arise out of
the need to minimize the chances of arbitrariness and induce clarity.
The reasons, apart from being essential feature of principles of
natural justice, ensures transparency in decision making process.
Reasons are indicative of application of mind and giving reasons is
also essential when the order is amenable to further avenues of
challenge. In the instant case, the Court below granted ex parte
temporary injunction in a mechanical fashion without assigning any
reasons. In Shiv Kumar Chadha (1 supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that even for passing an ex parte injunction order, the
Court must assign reasons. Viewed thus, the impugned order is
against the spirit of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decision cited supra. Under these circumstances, the
petitioner/defendant has no other remedy except to approach this
Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India by filing the present
Civil Revision Petition, as the order was based on an application filed
under Rule 44 of the Agency rules and against such orders, this
Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, is
maintainable before this Court. Under these circumstances, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be
met if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to
the Court below for disposal of the subject I.A. afresh, after
affording opportunity of hearing to both parties.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by
setting aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed in
I.A.No.229 of 2022 in O.S.No.241 of 2022 by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court
at Bhadrachalam. The matter is remitted to the Court below with a
direction to dispose of the subject I.A.No.229 of 2022 afresh, in
accordance with law, by considering the provisions laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha's case (1 supra), after
affording opportunity to both the parties to advance their
submissions within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. Till such time, both the parties are directed
to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the suit
schedule land, which course would subserve the ends of justice.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal
Revision Case shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
_________________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 28.04.2023
Dgr
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Civil Revision Petition No.427 of 2023
Date: 28.04.2023
dgr
