PALLERLA VENKATESHWARLU Vs. VOOTKURI BIXAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S.No.144 of 2006 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda against the respondents, for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. According to him, the suit schedule property was purchased under a document, dated 19-11-1996 and when he was proceeding with the construction after obtaining permission from the Municipality, the respondents started interfering with the same on 23-3-2006. He also filed I.A.No.378 of 2006 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. initially, and order of temporary injunction was passed on 24-3-2006 and after contest by the respondents, it was made absolute on 2-8-2006. Complaining that the respondents, continued to interfere with the construction, the petitioner filed I.A.No.527 of 2006 for grant of police-aid and the LA. was ordered on 7-10-2006.

(2.) The respondents filed I. A. (SR) No.3082 of 2006 under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. with a prayer to modify the order of temporary injunction. It was dismissed on 1-11-2006. Simultaneously, the respondents filed I.A.No.1291 of 2006 under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. with a prayer to grant temporary injunction in their favour. The trial Court dismissed the application on the same day i.e., on 1-11-2006. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed C.M.A.No.22 of 2006 in the Court of the District Judge, Nalgonda. The C.M.A was allowed on 16-11 -2006.

(3.) Sri M. Subba Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when an order of temporary injunction is in force between the same parties, the question of granting temporary injunction in favour of a respondent therein, does not arise. The learned counsel further submits that such a course would result in nullifying the order of temporary injunction granted between the same parties and in the same proceedings.