BHANU MURGESH Vs. RAJA PERAMAL KONDREDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue an appropriate Writ or order, to quash and set aside order dated 09. 09. 2009 passed by the Trial Court below application at Exhibit 110, in Civil Suit No. 5189 of 2001, filed by the present respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case, relevant for the decision of the petition are that, the respondent, who is the original plaintiff, brought the said suit against the petitioners (defendants therein) restraining them from making encroachment or unlawfully dispossessing the plaintiff from the open land admeasuring 26 square yards, owned and occupied by the plaintiff, situated on the southern side of the premises of the plaintiff. An application for temporary injunction was also filed below Ex. 7 by the respondent, for grant of temporary injunction, which has been allowed. The Trial Court has appointed Court Commissioners on 09. 11. 2001 and 17. 02. 2006 who have filed their reports and prepared maps of the suit premises. It is the case of the respondent (original plaintiff) that during the pendency of the injunction granted in his favour, the defendants have flouted the order of the Court and have demolished the latrine and bathroom of the plaintiff built upon the suit premises. It is under these circumstances that the Court issued Commission for the second time, as mentioned hereinabove. The respondent has also moved an application Ex. 72 for breach of injunction which is pending adjudication. Another application at Ex. 82 has also been moved by the respondent with a prayer that the defendants be restrained from causing any obstruction, which has been allowed by the Trial Court on 02. 04. 2007. The case of the original plaintiff before the Trial Court is that despite the above-mentioned orders, the defendants are obstructing the respondent from constructing the latrine and bathroom on his land and he was driven to seek police protection by payment of an amount of Rs. 1,686/- for the same and it is only under police protection that the respondent has been able to construct the said latrine and bathroom by spending Rs. 15,000/ -. The case of the plaintiff (present respondent) is that in spite of the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court having been confirmed after hearing both parties, the petitioners (original defendants) have trespassed over the suit property on 10. 10. 2008, by flouting the injunction order and thereby have dispossessed him from the suit premises. They have also locked the door of the suit premises, which is falling on the main road towards southern side, and the household articles lying in the said premises have also been taken away by the petitioners. In the aforesaid background, the application below Ex. 110 was filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) praying for mandatory relief of restoration of possession. The petitioners filed a reply thereto vide Ex. 123, denying the averments made in the application. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the Trial Court has allowed the said application by directing the petitioners to hand over possession of the disputed premises to the respondent, giving rise to the filing of the petition.

(3.) MR. BHUNESH C. Rupera, learned counsel for the petitioners, has made the following submissions: