POTHURAJU MYSAIAH Vs. POTHURAJU SUDARSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1, challenging the order, dtd. 15/9/2022, passed in I.A.No.58 of 2022 in O.S.No.64 of 2022 by the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem (for short, 'Agency Court'), whereby, temporary injunction order was granted in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 would submit that the respondents/plaintiffs have not adduced any single document to substantiate that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. Though the petitioner/defendant No.1 have adduced documentary evidence, the Agency Court has neither marked them nor referred to them while passing the order of injunction, which is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T.Bhopal Reddy and another Vs. K.R.Lakshmi Bai and another, 1998 (1) ALD 770 (DB). The petitioner/defendant No.1 and his brother are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they were granted pattadar passbook and title deed to the schedule property and also receiving the aid under Rythu Bandhu Scheme. The Court below failed to consider the cardinal principles of assigning reasons for grant of temporary injunction and erroneously opined that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Without there being any evidence on record, the Court below granted injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs on the ipse dixit of the respondents/plaintiffs and ultimately requested this Court to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Agency Court.