AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Being aggrieved by the order of Principal District Judge at Khammam dated 29.12.2017 in C.M.A. No. 18 of 2017 whereunder the learned 1st appellate Court dismissed the appeal against the order in I.A. No. 275 of 2017 in O.S. No. 109 of 2017 of the trial Court, the defendant in the Original Suit and respondent in the above referred Interlocutory Application filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India and challenged the order on the following grounds.
The lower appellate Court committed a grave error by observing that the petitioner herein could not place any evidence to show the subject pathway is a Government pathway, thereby appeal is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has claimed that the said finding is absurd, unreasonable and illogical in view of the fact that the respondent did not claim any exclusive rights over the above referred pathway and did not dispute the fact that the pathway belongs to the Government.
The petitioner has claimed that the Court below committed an error by observing that the subject pathway is meant for footpath and cannot be converted into track way to run bullock carts and tractors. The said finding is bad in law because the records show that it is a footpath but its width is more than 8 feet 3 inches.
Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Courts below ought to have seen that the above referred passage should have been taken in its true spirit and such reference is made in the revenue parlance to the width of the passage alone and for movements of bullock carts and tractors. He has claimed that Courts below missed to note that the suit that was filed for injunction, is not maintainable as the respondents/plaintiffs have no locus standi to seek an injunction against the petitioner herein. The petitioner has claimed that the above referred pathway has been in existence since times immemorial and the same is passing through Survey Numbers 66, 67, 68, 64, 74 and 75 and all the respective owners including the parties to the present petition were using the same for ingress and egress to reach their respective fields.
As could be seen from the record placed before this Court, it seems that the respondents having filed a suit in O.S. No. 109 of 2017 for perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.11.09 guntas in Sy.No.66-A, moved an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 275 of 2017 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 CPC and sought for temporary injunction to restrain the petitioner herein who was shown as respondent/defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the schedule property and to prevent the petitioner herein from using the same as track for carrying bullock carts, tractors etc., The trial Court having appreciated the averments made by the respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 in the affidavit and also considering the counter filed by the present petitioner, allowed the petition and granted injunction in favour of the respondents. Being not happy with the said order, the petitioner herein moved an appeal vide C.M.A. No. 18 of 2017 before the Principal District Court, Khammam. The said appeal was dismissed under impugned order dated 29.12.2017.
The petitioner has filed the present revision and sought for setting aside the order so that he will be permitted to use the pathway for ingress and egress and to carry out their bullock carts and tractors etc.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted his arguments. However, when it is his turn, the learned counsel for respondent made a mention before the Court that since the suit was filed about more than seven years ago and as the same has reaped for trial, instead of disposing the petition on merits, it would suffice if the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit itself in expeditious manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner though not willing to the said proposal, conceded that if the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a time bound schedule, the purpose of filing the revision would be satisfied.
As per the record, it seems the respondents/plaintiffs who filed the main suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the agricultural land, filed the above referred Interlocutory Application for a temporary injunction for restraining the petitioner herein from using the way i.e. shown in the petition schedule for carrying bullock carts, tractors etc. A temporary injunction was granted in favour of the respondents on 09.10.2017 and the same is in force as on this date. The appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was dismissed on merits. As rightly claimed by the learned counsel for the respondents since the suit has already riped for trial and as the same has been pending for the past seven years, instead of deciding the petition on merits and questioning the correctness of interim injunction, which has been in force for the past more than six years, this Court is of the opinion that there is a necessity for giving direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the injunction was ordered in respect of the Government land, over which the petitioner and nearby farmers have got right too, because of the injunction they are prevented from enjoying the said right, thereby expressed some urgency.
Taking all the above circumstances into consideration, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the main suit i.e. O.S. No.109 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible preferably in four (4) months from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The trial Court shall give priority for the disposal of the suit and report compliance after disposal of the suit. There is no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.