Chava Apparao vs Chava Srinivasa Rao
2023 Latest Caselaw 2676 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1977 OF 2023
ORAL ORDER:

      Heard Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Mandapati Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. This revision is filed under Article - 227 of the Constitution

of India challenging the order dated 18.01.2023 in I.A. No.407 of

2022 in O.S. No.411 of 2022 passed by learned the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam.

3. The petitioner herein - plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S. No.411

of 2022 against the respondents herein - defendants seeking perpetual

injunction. He has also filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.

No.407 of 2022 seeking ad interim injunction. The learned Sub-

Divisional Magistrate ordered notice. The respondents entered

appearance and filed their counter. Upon hearing them, the learned

Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the said I.A. vide order dated

18.01.2023.

4. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that though the

learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate referred the pleadings of the parties

KL, J CRP No.1977 of 2023

and the documents filed by them, no reasons were assigned. There is

no consideration of the pleadings and documents filed by the parties.

The impugned order is an order passed without assigning reasons and

it is a nullity.

5. It is also relevant to note that in Chernam Chinna

Balmasiah v. State Teachers Union, Telangana 1, this Court held as

under:

"This Court, having given conscious thought, had observed that there is some ambiguity arising on account of the observations of the Division Bench in T.

Bhopal Reddy v. K.R. Lakshmi Bai [1998 (1) ALD 770 (DB), wherein it is not categorically held that it is mandatory for the documents to be marked. On further examination, it was found that there is yet another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.Nos. 527, 564 and 607 of 2017, dated 21.07.2017, which, while holding that the Rule regarding marking of documents in terms of the Civil Rules of Practice be adhered to, directed the Registry to issue a Circular to the subordinate courts to mark the documents filed by the parties to the Interlocutory Applications before deciding such Applications. In this context, Rules 51, 60 and 115 of the Civil Rules of Practice may be noted. While Rule 115 deals with marking of documents admitted in evidence, which can

. CRP No.1234 of 2020, decided on 28.07.2021

KL, J CRP No.1977 of 2023

be done only at the time of trial, Rule 51 read with Rule 60 caters to the need of the marking of documents for the purpose of disposal of the Interlocutory Applications. Rules 51 and 60, which are more relevant for the purpose of dealing with the issue in the present Revision, are extracted as under:

" 51. Documents referred to in affidavit:-

Document referred to by affidavit shall be referred to as exhibits and shall be marked in the same manner as exhibits admitted by the court and shall bear the certificate in Form No.16 which shall be signed by the officer before whom the affidavit is taken.

60. Proof of facts by affidavit:-

Any fact required to be proved upon an interlocutory proceeding shall unless otherwise provided by these rules, or ordered by the court, be provided by affidavit but the Judge may, in any case, direct evidence to be given orally, and thereupon the evidence shall be recorded, and exhibits marked, in the same manner as in a suit and lists of the witnesses and exhibits shall be prepared and annexed to the judgment."

6. In the light of the above discussion and the principle laid

down by this Court, there is no consideration of the said principle and

the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate violated the procedure while

passing the impugned order.

KL, J CRP No.1977 of 2023

7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, without going into

the merits and demerits of the case, the impugned order dated

18.01.2023 in I.A. No.407 of 2022 in O.S. No.411 of 2022 passed by

learned the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at

Bhadrachalam is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the

learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate with a direction to consider the

aforesaid I.A. No.407 of 2022 and pass appropriate orders strictly in

accordance with law by putting the parties on notice and affording

them an opportunity. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall

decide the said I.A. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a

period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this

order. Till disposal of the I.A., the parties are directed to maintain

status quo with regard to the subject property in all respects.

8. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. In the

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

revision shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 23rd September, 2023 Mgr