Raja Iqbal Karan & Others Vs C.

Malla Reddy & Others

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh

Civil Revision Petition No. 2412 Of 2010

Judgment Date:
09-07-2010

Raja Iqbal Karan & Others ..Petitioner

C. Malla Reddy & Others ..Respondent

Bench :
{ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY }

Citation :
LQ 2010 HC 9306

Judgment
Petitioners filed O.S.No. 45 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, against
respondents 2 and 3, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property,
admeasuring Ac.3.18 guntas in different survey numbers of Mamidipally Village, Sanga Reddy Mandal,
Medak District. They narrated the manner in which, they are said to have acquired rights, vis-à-vis the
property, and alleged that the respondents 2 and 3 are interfering with their possession and enjoyment.
Petitioners have also filed I.A.No. 142 of 2009, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The application was
opposed by the respondents 2 and 3. Through its order dated 17-03-2009, the trial Court allowed the I.A.

2. The 1st respondent is not a party to the suit, or I.A. He left aggrieved by the order of temporary
injunction, in I.A.No. 142 of 2009. Initially, he approached this Court by filing a revision. On the basis of the
orders passed therein, he filed C.M.A.No. 19 of 2009 in the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Offences
under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Medak, at Sarga Reddy. The C.M.A. was
allowed, through order dated 31-07-2009, and the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court
was set aside. Hence, this revision.

3. Heard Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the lower Appellate Court
had based its conclusions on a set of documents, which were not even made part of record, and without
giving any opportunity to the petitioners to rebut the same. He contends that, in case the lower Appellate
Court felt that the documents filed by the 1st respondent are relevant, it ought to have remanded the matter
to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal.

4. Sri. K. Laxmaiah, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners
have purposefully omitted to make his client a party to the suit and collusive order of temporary injunction
was obtained. He contends that the lower Appellate Court examined the documents filed by the 1st
respondent, and the petitioners have also advanced their contentions, in relation to both the documents.
Learned counsel submits that the order under revision does not warrant interference.

5. The petitioners did not implead the 1st respondent herein, either in the suit, or the I.A. Obviously, feeling
aggrieved by the order of temporary injunction, passed in the I.A., the 1st respondent initially approached
this Court, and thereafter the Appellate Court.

Printed For : On 10-06-2020 01:13 AM

Page 1 of 2
 Raja Iqbal Karan & Others Vs C. Malla Reddy & Others

6. No exception can be taken to the filing of the C.M.A. by the 1st respondent. Had it been a case, where
the consideration by the lower Appellate Court was confined to the material, that was available for the trial
Court, it would have been certainly open to it, to arrive at different conclusions, also and to set aside the
order of temporary injunction.

7. The 1st respondent filed certain documents in the C.M.A. It is known whether any application was filed
under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., for receiving those documents. The order passed by the lower Appellate
Court is silent on this aspect. In case the lower Appellate Court felt that the documents filed by the 1st
respondent are relevant, it ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners also, to file documents, if any,
in their possession, to contradict those, filed by the 1st respondent. The petitioners contend that no such
opportunity was given.

8. The trial Court passed, order, after perusing the documents filed before it. The order passed by it, cannot
be found fault with, in an appeal, on the basis of documents, which were not before it. If it is felt by an
appellate Court, that any other documents are necessary to resolve the dispute, the proper course would be,
to remand the matter to trial Court.

9. The lower Appellate Court based its conclusions exclusively upon the documents, filed by the 1st
respondent. One such document was a validation certificate. Even according to the 1st respondent, that
certificate is the subject-matter of several proceedings, including writ petition, pending before this Court.
Unless all the relevant documents are available, on record, and parties have an opportunity to deal with the
same, it would be too difficult for the Court to arrive at a just and proper conclusion.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the order under revision is set aside. To pave the way for remand of the
matter to the trial Court the order in I.A. is also set aside. It shall be open to the petitioners and the
respondents to file fresh documents, which they intend to, before the trial Court. Learned Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, shall endeavour to dispose of the I.A. within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. The suit schedule property is said to be open land. The parties shall maintain status quo, in relation
thereto, till the trial Court passes fresh orders.

12. There shall be no order as to costs.

Printed For : On 10-06-2020 01:13 AM

Page 2 of 2