1 APHC010015932024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 197/2024 Between: 1. Bolleddu Kiran Kumar, S/o. Raju, aged about 33 years, Occ:Business, R/o.D.No.97-1-16/4, Dariya nagar, A.C.College road, Nagarampalem, Guntur city, Guntur district. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church, rep. By its president/trustee, most. Rev. Dr. Kollabathula fredick paradesi babu, s/o. Late Suryarao, aged about 59 years. Moderator - bishop, R/o. Aelc compound, brodipet, guntur, guntur district. 2. Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church, rep. By its treasurer/trustee, Property Officer Kollabathula Moses Arnold, s/o. Suryarao, aged about 50 years, r/o.D.No.27-4-59/2, Christian Ashram, Guntur, Guntur district. 3. Sri Lam Edwins Memorial Minority Educational Society, rep. By its Secretary and correspondent mallam Prameela Edna sukanya rani, w/o. Lam prakasa rao, aged about 45 years, r/o. Stall girls high school compound, guntur, guntur district ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the orders made in CMA.No.10 of 2023 on the file of I Addl. 2 District Judge, Guntur District dated 22.12.2023 in I.A.No.294 of 2023 in O.S.No.529 of 2023 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant ad interim injunction by suspending the order in CMA.No.10 of 2023 on the file of 1 Addl. District Judge, Guntur District dated 22.12.2023 in I.A.No.294 of 2023 in O.S.No.529 of 2023 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the C.R.P.No. of 2024 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NAGARAJU PULLAGURA 2. Dr.SATTARU RAJANI The court made the following order: The present civil revision petition is filed being aggrieved by orders dated 22.12.2023 in C.M.A.No.10 of 2023 confirming the orders passed in I.A.No.294/2023 in O.S.No.529/2023 on the file of learned I Addl. District Judge, Guntur. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that: The petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in the suit filed for permanent injunction vide O.S.No.529/2023. In the said suit, petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.294/2023 for temporary injunction. The said application was dismissed upon the counters filed by the respondents. Assailing the said dismissal order, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.10/2023 which 3 was also dismissed under its order dated 22.12.2023. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision petition came to be filed. 3. Heard Sri M.K.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.S.S.Swayam Prakash, learned counsel representing Ms D.Sattaru Rajani, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 and Sri Nagaraju Pullagura, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application filed before the court below and the grounds of CMA contended that, both the courts (trial court and appellate court) failed to see the purport of the Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 in right perspective. He further submitted that, though the plaintiff/petitioner satisfied the three ingredients (i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and hardship) that are required for granting of temporary injunction, the court below did not grant any injunction. He further submitted that, initially ad- interim injunction has been granted but after filing of counter, the trial court has vacated the ad-interim injunction and dismissed the temporary injunction, without addressing or answering the lease deed relied by the plaintiff. He further submitted that, despite raising several grounds, the appellate court had dismissed the appeal and that, the points framed by the appellate court are not related to the grounds of the appeal. He further submitted that, the points made for consideration by the appellate court is with regard to the order dated 4 11.09.2017 whereas the order impugned before the appellate court is of the dated 20.07.2023 passed by the trial court in I.A.No.294/2023. He further submitted that, even according to the 3rd defendant, the petitioner is in the possession of the subject property, as such, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case in a right perspective, both the courts have dismissed the applications very casually. If the temporary injunction is not granted, the petitioner will be thrown out of the subject property and the purpose of filing the suit will be frustrated, as such prayed to allow the revision by allowing the I.A.No.294/2023 filed for temporary injunction. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 while justifying the orders of the trial court and appellate court contended that the respondent nos.1 & 2 never executed lease deed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and the said lease deed is a fabricated one, as such the court below and the appellate court have rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application as he has failed to prove the necessary ingredients that are required for grant of permanent injunction and that there is no injunction pending consideration of the C.M.A.No.10/2023 which was filed before the appellate court. He further submitted that, the petitioner has not made out any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the revision. 6. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that, the petitioner initially established a tea stall outside the premises of the suit schedule property and later he tried to trespass the suit schedule property and allowing 5 the outsiders by providing them liquor and the outsiders, after consuming alcohol, are throwing the liquor bottles into the ladies hostel premises and using un-parliamentary language near the ladies toilets. He further submitted that, several complaints have been lodged before the concerned police station and a crime was also registered, which was pending consideration. The petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. He further submitted that, since the petitioner failed to place evidence to show that he is in lawful possession and did not raise any valid legal and factual grounds, the court below and the appellate court have rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application based on the material available on record, as such prayed to dismiss the civil revision being meritless. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for respective parties. 8. The prime grievance of the petitioner/plaintiff is that, despite satisfying the three ingredients for grant of temporary injunction, the court below has dismissed the application filed for grant of temporary injunction vide I.A.No.294/2023 under its order dated 20.07.2023. The other grievance raised by the plaintiff is that, when the plaintiff has approached the appellate court assailing the dismissal order dated 20.07.2023 in C.M.A.No.10/2023, the appellate court has framed points with regard to order dated 11.09.2017 which is not at all the order impugned before the appellate court and had mechanically dismissed the said CMA. 6 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that, in a suit for permanent injunction, the court must focus primarily on settled, lawful possession rather than mere physical possession, particularly if the defendant is the true owner. While a person in peaceful possession is entitled to protection, a trespasser or someone in peaceful possession cannot seek an injunction against the true owner. 10. A perusal of the order of the appellate court in C.M.A.No.10/2023 would indicate that, the points framed by it is not at all related to the order impugned before it and that the documents Ex.R1 & R2 which are referred by the appellate court, were not at all marked by the trial court. This Court is unable to understand as to whether the said mistakes are the mistake of copy & paste or whether the appellate court did not look into the record at all. 11. Admittedly, no documents are placed before the trial court, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a memo dated 06.02.2024 enclosing documents with regard to agreement and some property receipts which are not filed before the court below but filed before this court. This Court, sitting under Article 227, cannot go beyond what is available on record, thus, the said memo dated 06.02.2024 cannot be looked into and the petitioner, always has to take legal steps in bringing those documents before the courts. 7 12. In the above view of facts, this court is of the firm opinion that, the appellate court has dealt the order impugned before it in I.A.No.294/2023 by framing a wrong point for consideration and upon false assumption that R1 & R2 were marked before the trial court, though no documents were marked, erroneously dismissed the appeal filed before it vide C.M.A.No.10/2023, as such the same is liable to the dismissed and the matter has to be remanded for fresh adjudication. 13. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed-in-part and the order dated 22.12.2023 passed in C.M.A.No.10 of 2023 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned I Addl. District Judge, Guntur for fresh adjudication, after providing opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS