Telangana High Court
Banoth Mangilal vs Nallamothu Pushapavathi on 21 March, 2023
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
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
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:
2017 (5) ALD 348 (DB)
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.
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
