CRP/5336/2010 of Pericherla Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs Penmethsa Perraraju, on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the orderin I.A. No.13 of 2010 in O.S. No.34 of 2010 dated 17.07.2010 onthe file of the Court of the Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, wherebyan order of injunction was granted in favour of the respondentherein.

Sri P.V. Ramana, Learned Counsel, has filed caveat onbehalf of the respondent. Both the counsel agree that the CivilRevision Petition be disposed of at the stage of admission.

Sri N. Subba Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners,would submit that the respondent herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.109 of 2004, wherein initially an order of injunction wasgranted; and, on the said injunction being vacated, therespondent had preferred an appeal in CMA. No.663 of 2005which was dismissed by this Court by order 20.10.2005. Learned Counsel would submit that, since the suit filed by therespondent itself was dismissed later, it was not open to therespondent herein to file a fresh suit in O.S. No.34 of 2010before the Court of the Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam. LearnedCounsel would also draw attention of this Court to Rule 8 of theAndhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924 (for short ‘the Rules’) insupport of his submission that, since an earlier suit was filed forthe very same cause of action, a subsequent suit does not lie;and that allegations, touching upon the integrity of the SpecialAssistant Agent, Bhadrachalam, were made.

Sri P.V. Ramana, Learned Counsel for the respondent,would submit that the petitioner herein had subsequently filedO.S. No.117 of 210 before the Agent to the Government,Khammam along with I.A. No.47 of 2010; the Agent toGovernment, Khammam had transferred O.S. No.34 of 2010,pending before the Special Assistant Agent and Sub-DivisionalMagistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, to himself; and thematter is coming up on 21.01.2011 for orders being passed inthe suits/I.As. Learned Counsel would submit that, since thesuit filed by the respondent itself has been transferred to theAgent to Government, Khammam, the contentions regarding theapplicability of Rule 8 of the Rules or to the earlier dismissal inO.S.No.109 of 2004 are wholly irrelevant.

While Sri P.V. Ramana, Learned Counsel for therespondent, would submit that this fact has been suppressed inthe revision, Sri N.Subba Rao, Learned Counsel for thepetitioners, would vehemently deny the same. It is whollyunnecessary for this Court to examine the rival contentions inas much as both the suits in O.S. Nos.117 and 34 of 2010 filedby the petitioners and the respondent respectively are nowpending adjudication before the Agent to the Government,Khammam, and are stated to have been posted to 21.01.2011.

Since there is a dispute on the question of possession,and both the petitioners and the respondent claim to be inpossession of the land in question and to have raised a standingcrop thereon, I consider it appropriate to direct the Agent to theGovernment, Khammam to depute a responsible officer for saleof the standing crop, on its being harvested, in the presence ofboth the petitioners and the respondent, and to retain theproceeds thereof with him till the I.As. filed both by the petitioners and the respondent are finally disposed of; and,depending on the orders passed therein, to take further action tohandover the amount realized on the sale of the standing crop toeither of the parties. I have no reason to doubt that the I.As.would be disposed of expeditiously.

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Date:31.12.2010usd

RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J