G SAMBRAJYAM Vs. P MAHALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions involve similar questions of law and fact and arise out of a common judgment dated 30-4-93 in C.M.A.Nos. 5/93 and 11/93 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Bapatla. They were preferred against the common order dated 25-ll-92inI.A.Nos. 1264/91 and 1265/91 in O.S.No. 147/91 on the file of the District Munsif, Bapatla.

(2.) The learned Munsif Magistrate while allowing the applications afforded the relief of temporary injunction to the plaintiffs in the suit restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties. Item No.l is an agricultural land with D.No. 389 /5 with an extent of Ac. 133 guntas whereas item No.2 is a residential house. Aggrieved by such orders in favour of the present petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the suit, the respondents herein who are the defendants in the suit, took the matter in appeal which was allowed by the learned Sub-Judge thereby dismissing the application for temporary injuncting and setting aside the orders passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioners herein who are the plaintiffs in the suit have questioned the correctness and legality of the judgment of the learned Sub-Judge.

(3.) The most perfunctory and aberrated orders and judgments of the two learned Judicial Officers of the Courts below, if deciphered with some strong strain bring out these facts: