KOMMINENI NARENDRA Vs. PARUCHURI SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No.1 in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order, dtd. 24/12/2021 in I.A.No.1483 of 2021 in O.S.No.293 of 2021 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

(2.) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being plaintiffs filed O.S.No.293 of 2021 against revision petitioner and others seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, associates, followers and confederates from in any way interfering with and/or causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property.

(3.) In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that plaintiff No.2 is daughter of plaintiff No.1; that plaintiff No.1 took the suit schedule shop on oral lease from its owners i.e. Ravela Ramalingaiah and Ravela Srinivas, forty years back and has been running cool drink shop; that suit schedule property is one of the shops in tiled roofed house commonly known as 'Ravela Ramalingaiah Satram Shops'; that defendant No.1 got house towards South of the tiled roofed house; that since three years, defendant No.1 has been raising disputes with owners of the suit schedule property; that in the said process defendant No.1 got instigated defendant No.3 and on 13/11/2018 with the support of unruly elements, caused damage to the tiled roof of the building; that plaintiff No.2 along with other tenants lodged complaint with the SHO, Thulluru Police Station; that owners of the shops and defendant No.1 filed W.P.Nos.43066 of 2018 and 43748 of 2018 respectively; that both the writ petitions were disposed of by common order, dtd. 19/1/2021 recording a finding that owners of the plaintiffs proved possession over the property and further directed respondents therein not to interfere with the petitioner's possession except by following due process of law; that defendant No.2 by abusing his office position as defendant No.3 got published notice, dtd. 16/2/2021 by giving misinterpretations to the context of the orders of the High Court; that defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with staff of defendant No.3 came to the suit schedule property on 18/8/2021 and tried to damage the suit schedule property, however, the same was resisted and hence, suit was filed for injunction.