HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2824 of 2014 Date: 02.09.2014 Between:
Sathineni Rajamallu S/o. Balraj, Aged about 62 years, Occu: Agriculture, r/o.Arepalli Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District and others.
.. Revision Petitioners AND Mupidi Shyam Sunder Reddy s/o.Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occu: Business, R/o.H.No.2-2-504, New Kishanpura, Hanamkonda, Warangal District and others.
.. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2824 of 2014 ORDER:
Petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.832 of 2013 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, representatives or any other person or persons claiming through them from interfering into the suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘D’ properties pending disposal of the suit. In the said I.A., petitioners herein/defendants in the suit filed I.A.No.91 of 2014 to summon the Tahasildar, Karimnagar, to give evidence and to produce the documents mentioned in the list of documents. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, by orders dated 13.08.2014, dismissed the said I.A.No.91/2014. Hence, this revision petition.
2. Counsel for the revision petitioners contends that order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, is erroneous, that trial Court failed to notice that the documents presented by the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A.No.832 of 2013 are forged and fabricated, that no such documents are existing in the revenue records and if the Tahasildar is summoned, the truth would come out and, therefore, he contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A.No.91 of 2014 and trial Court failed to appreciate that even at the interlocutory stage the trial Court is entitled to go into the evidence available on record and record evidence also.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that this revision petition is filed with an intention to drag on the matter; that several such petitions are filed to delay the finalisation of Interlocutory Application filed by him. Interlocutory Application is pending for consideration for more than one year and that the request of the revision petitioners to summon the Tahsildar is not valid. The suit has not reached the stage as mandated by Order XVI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and summoning the Tahsildar at this stage does not arise.
4. As seen from the documents filed and as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners a detailed counter- affidavit is filed by the respondents in I.A.No.832 of 2013 and they have also enclosed documents in support of their contention that the documents relied upon by the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A.No.832 of 2013 are not valid documents, no credence can be given and based on the said documents, no injunction can be granted. The grant of injunction is discretion of the learned trial Judge. At the stage of interlocutory application, no detailed exercise need to be undertaken to go into the validity or otherwise of the genuineness of the documents. Conditions for granting injunction is based on prima facie consideration of the issue and the balance of convenience. The validity or otherwise of the genuineness of the documents are required to be gone into at the stage of trial. The trial has not commenced and, therefore, it is premature for the petitioners to call for a witness. There is no basis to contend that learned Judge would not take into consideration the counter-affidavit filed by them. Thus, I see no error in dismissing the I.A., by the trial Court. It is needless to observe that the learned trial Judge shall consider all aspects before passing orders in I.A.No.832 of 2013.
5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date : 02.09.2014 kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2824 of 2014 Date: 02.09.2014 kkm