HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.954 of 2014 Date: 14-11-2014 Between:
Dadi Vasudeva Reddy and another .. Appellants AND V. Vedavathi and 2 others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.954 of 2014 ORDER:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 02-06-2014 in I.A.No.1300 of 2012 in O.S.No.634 of 2012 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, granting injunction in favour of the 1st respondent herein restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the peaceful possession over the petition schedule property, which is distinct and different property referred in O.S.No.1426 of 2013.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned counsel for both parties insisted for disposal of the main C.M.A.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants also filed O.S.No.1426 of 2013 before the same Court against the 1st respondent herein for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the same property and obtained injunction in I.A.No.2511 of 2013 in O.S.No.1426 of 2013 by the order dated 02- 06-2014 against which C.M.A.No.823 of 2014 is filed by the respondents herein and this court set aside the said order holding that the Court below, without marking the documents and properly discussing about the documents and without going into the merits of the case, has straight away granted injunction.
He further contends that the order under revision is passed on similar lines to that of the order dated 02-06-2014 in I.A.No.2511 of 2013 in O.S.No.1426 of 2013, as such, the order under revision is also liable to be set aside for the reasons alike in the said order in C.M.A.No.823 of 2014.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent has not disputed about setting aside the order dated 02-06-2014 passed in I.A.No.2511 of 2013 in O.S.No.1426 of 2013 in C.M.A.No.823 of 2014.
The Court below, while passing the order under revision, has not marked any documents and not considered the cardinal principles for grant of temporary injunction, which are considered to be sine qua non for granting of injunction. The Court below also did not state the manner in which it relied on the documents filed by the parties and simply granted injunction without recording a definite finding as to who is in possession of suit property as on date of filing of the suit. It has to be seen that the Court below also passed an identical order on the same day in I.A.No.2511 of 2013 in O.S.No.1426 of 2013 where the subject property is claimed by the appellants herein. The parties in both the suits are one and the same and both the suits are filed for grant of perpetual injunction on the file of the same court claiming the subject property in both the suits one against the other. The order dated 02-06-2014 in I.A.No.2511 of 2013 was already set aside by this court in C.M.A.No.823 of 12014. Since the order dated 02-06-2014 passed in I.A.No.2511 of 2013 in O.S.No.1426 of 2013 is already set aside, the present order under revision is also liable to be set aside for the same reasons so as to avoid of arriving of two conflicting decisions. It is open for the Court below to decide whether the property claimed in two suits is one and the same or different.
Accordingly, the order dated 02-06-2014 in I.A.No.1300 of 2012 in O.S.No.634 of 2012 passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is set aside and the Court below is directed to dispose of I.A.No.1300 of 2012 in O.S.No.634 of 2012 along with I.A.No.2511 of 2013 in O.S.No.1426 of 2013 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 14-11-2014