M ANJANEYULU NAIDU Vs. UMAPATHI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the orders of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dated 30-3-2001 in I.A.No, 212 of 2001 in O.S.No. 207 of 2001 appointing Advocate- Commissioner for auctioning the sugarcane crop on the plaint schedule land, the petitioners (defendants) filed this civil revision petition.

(2.) Heard both sides.

(3.) The factual background of this case is that there is one temple of Lord Vinayaka Swamy in the village Battuvandlavooru and the said temple has got some immovable properties. As per the version of parties, the said temple is a private temple and that the poojari was looking after the affairs of the said temple. As per the version of the respondents herein, one Perumal Reddy was the tenant of these lands. When the Poojari sold the lands to the petitioners who are husband and wife to each other, the said Perumal Reddy filed A.T.C.No. 4 of 2000 on 4-9-2000 along with I.A.No. 1236 of 2000. To prove his possession, the said Perumal Reddy filed third party affidavit given by T. Prabhakar Naidu, one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 207 of 2001 and the Court seemed to have passed the order of status quo. What happened in the said A.T.C. is not known at this stage as both the Counsel are unable to give correct position. On 11-3-2000, the said Perumal Reddy filed O.S.No. 891 of 2000 seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners herein on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for the very same properties. The said Perumal Reddy filed I.A.No. 1288 of 2000 with third party affidavit given by Umapathy Naidu, the first plaintiff in the said O.S.No. 891 of 2000 seeking temporary injunction. Though the Court below passed the order of interim injunction, it later vacated that order on 27-9-2000 directing both parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the said Perumal Reddy filed I.A.No. 414 of 2001 in O.S. No. 891 of 2000 for restraining the petitioners from harvesting the sugarcane crop but the Court below dismissed that application on 21-3-2001. Once again, the said Perumal Reddy filed another application, I.A.No. 306 of 2001, in O.S. No. 891 of 2000 against the petitioners on 21-3-2001 seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner for auctioning the sugarcane crop, and the same seems to be pending. In the meantime, both the individuals who gave third party affidavits in the said A.T.C. and O.S.No. 891 of 2000 filed by the said Perumal Reddy, filed a representative suit, O.S.No. 207 of 2001, on behalf of the villagers against the petitioners on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from harvesting the sugarcane crop. Along with the said O.S.No, 207 of 2001, they also filed two interlocutory applications, one (I.A. No. 207 of 2001) for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from harvesting the sugarcane crop and another (I.A.No. 212 of 2001) for appointment of Receiver to auction the sugarcane crop. The petitioners perhaps having received the order of injunction in I.A.No. 207 of 2001, filed counters in the said I.As on 23-3-2001 duly bringing to the notice of the Court about the pendency of the said A.T.C. No. 4 of 2000 as well as O.S.No. 891 of 2000 filed by the said Perumal Reddy. The said learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge without applying his mind to the factual background of the case, by order, dated 30-3-2001, converted the order of injunction into the order of status quo and appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to auction the sugarcane crop. The presiding officer without knowing what orders he was passing, passed two conflicting orders which run counter to each other.