Gurram Yadagiri vs Arem Srikanth
2023 Latest Caselaw 693 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3081 of 2022

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2,

challenging the order, dated 17.02.2021, passed in I.A.No.208

of 2021 in O.S.No.197 of 2021 by the Special Assistant Agent

and Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam

(for short, 'Agency Court').

2. Heard Sri Mummineni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for

the petitioner/defendant No.2, Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar,

learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff and perused

the record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to, as per their array in the subject O.S.No.197 of

2021.

4. The plaintiff filed the subject O.S.No.197 of 2021 against

the defendants seeking perpetual injunction under Section 38 of

the Specific Relief Act, along with the subject I.A.No.208 of 2021

seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from

interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.3081 of 2022

petition schedule land, viz., Ac.0.06 guntas in Survey

No.64/1472 situated at Ram Nagar area of Samithi Singaram

Revenue Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem

District. The Agency Court granted an ex parte temporary

injunction restraining the defendants and their men from

interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff

over the petition schedule land until further orders and also

marked a copy of the said order to the police concerned for

necessary protection for the petition schedule land. Aggrieved

by the same, the defendant No.1 filed this Civil Revision Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 would

submit that the order under challenge is a non-speaking order,

cryptic, bereft of reasoning and cannot withstand the test of

judicial scrutiny. It is against the scope and intent of Order

XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC. Without verifying the actual possession of

the petition schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit, the

Agency Court granted ex parte temporary injunction. Further, a

copy of the impugned order was also marked to the police

concerned for providing necessary protection to the petition

schedule land, without there being any prayer for such

protection. The impugned order is against the spirit of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.3081 of 2022

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

No.1/plaintiff supported the impugned order and submits that a

well-reasoned order was passed by the Agency Court. Only in

order to protect the possession of the plaintiff over the petition

schedule land, a direction was given to the police. There is

nothing wrong in giving such direction and it is usual practice to

give such direction. The order under challenge warrants no

interference by this Court and ultimately prayed to dismiss the

Civil Revision Petition.

7. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the subject

I.A.No.208 of 2021 makes it clear that no request was made by

the plaintiff to direct the police to protect his possession over

the petition schedule land, except mentioning in paragraph 3 of

the affidavit that when the defendants threatened the plaintiff,

he resisted their illegal acts and reported the matter to the

police concerned, but the police advised him to approach the

competent Court, since it is a civil dispute. Further, the

(1993) 3 SCC 161

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.3081 of 2022

impugned order passed by the Agency Court is cryptic and

bereft of reasoning. It is incumbent upon the Agency Court to

advert to the pleadings, contentions, points involved and the

legal position, if any, applicable, and then to record findings

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 minimise chances of arbitrariness and

induce clarity. Giving reasons, apart from being an essential

feature of the principles of natural justice, ensures transparency

and fairness in the 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. The Agency Court granted ex parte temporary

injunction in a mechanical fashion by merely mentioning that

there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour

of the plaintiff. In Shiv Kumar Chadha's case supra, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that even for passing an ex parte

injunction order, the Court must assign reasons. Further, the

Agency Court marked a copy of the impugned order to the

Station House Officer, Manuguru Police Station, for necessary

protection for the petition schedule land, without there being

any such request by the plaintiff. Viewed thus, the Agency

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.3081 of 2022

Court has committed jurisdictional error in passing the

impugned order, which is against the spirit of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra. Under

these circumstances, the defendant No.1 had no other remedy

except to approach this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by filing the present Civil Revision Petition,

as the order impugned is passed on an application filed under

Rule 42(c) of T.S.Agency Rules and against such orders, this

Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, is maintainable before this Court. Under these

circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the

impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the

Agency Court for disposal of the subject IA afresh after affording

opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the same would meet

the ends of justice.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by

setting aside the impugned order, dated 17.02.2021, passed in

I.A.No.208 of 2021 in O.S.No.197 of 2021 by the Special

Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at

Bhadrachalam. The matter is remitted to the Agency Court with

a direction to dispose of the subject I.A.No.208 of 2021 afresh,

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.3081 of 2022

considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Shiv Kumar Chadha's case supra and after affording

opportunity to both the parties to advance their submissions.

Till such time, both the parties are directed to maintain status

quo with regard to the possession of the petition schedule land,

which course would sub-serve the ends of justice.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil

Revision Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as

to costs.

_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

10th February, 2023 KSK