KARRI VAIKUNTAVALLI THAYARAMMA Vs. SUKLA NARASIMHA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, both the counsel.

(2.) The unsuccessful respondents/defendants in I.A. No. 87 of 2002 in O.S. No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam had preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The respondent/ plaintiff filed the said application I.A. No. 87 of 2002 in O.S. No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge. Srikakulam under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from meddling with the land by reducing its usage and utility by making pits and other excavations in the suit schedule land pending disposal of the suit.

(3.) Both the counsel had made elaborate submissions. The learned counsel for the appellants would maintain that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam had not recorded any findings in detail relating to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss except observing so in the last portion of the order. The learned counsel also submitted that the subject matter of the suit is an agricultural land and because of granting temporary injunction the appellants are unable to proceed with the agricultural operations and they are not causing any damage to the property either by digging pits or otherwise. The learned counsel also submitted that the respondents had not placed any material to substantiate prima facie case and in the absence of any material, granting temporary injunction of this nature is bad in law.