M. RAMADEVI Vs. P GOVINDA SATYANARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dtd. 3/12/2018 of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.397 of 2017 in I.A.No.1287 of 2016 in O.S.No.1626 of 2016.

(2.) Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the defendants in the trial Court. The whole controversy is about plaintiff seeking permission from the Court to permit her to construct a compound wall as well as gates for the purpose of security of the building and the tenants living therein during the pendency of the suit and thereby ordering status quo ante. The learned trial Court refused to grant the prayer and dismissed the petition and that led to filing of this revision.

(3.) The plaintiff filed O.S.No.1626 of 2016 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men or agents or others from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs. The property that was sought to be protected is a house described vividly in the schedule that is appended to the plaint showing thus as RCC slabbed ground and first floor in an extent 335 square yards, which is plot No.11 bearing Door No.17-82 in Survey No.129/2 with electricity service connection numbers mentioned therein and this property is located at Pendurthy Village within Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, and specific boundaries are given. Plaint averments include claim of title and possession of the plaintiff by virtue of a registered gift deed obtained from her brother and it further traces the title and possession since the year 1990. It is also stated that defendant No.1 in the suit is a Member of Legislative Assembly of Anakapalli and defendant No.2 is his wife and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are their children. It is stated that till 21/11/2016 the husband of the plaintiff was taking care of the property. But, on that day which was 21/11/2016 he suddenly died. Thereafter on 19/12/2016 the defendants started threatening to demolish the plaintiff's building on northern side and they digged the road etc. and the digging continued up to the compound wall of the plaintiff on the northern side. It is stated that the defendants have no right to touch the suit schedule property and if they believed that there was encroachment on part of the plaintiff they ought to have issued a notice and filed a suit for recovery of possession and pursue the remedy through Court of law but instead of doing it they came up with bulldozer and started demolition. At page No.4 of the plaint it is also mentioned that since the defendants dug the entire land on the northern side upto the compound wall, at any time the compound wall will collapse as it got weakened. It is with such allegations the plaint was signed and filed on 23/12/2016. It is undisputed that the plaintiff also filed an application for granting of interim injunction in I.A.No.1287 of 2016. In that application on 23/12/2016 itself the learned trial Court granted status quo orders. Some time thereafter, the plaintiff had come up with I.A.No.397 of 2017 invoking powers of the Court under Sec. 151 C.P.C. with a prayer that is extracted below: