THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4111 OF 2007 DATED:12-04- 2010. Between M.Sharath Babu … Petitioner-Plaintiff And 1.P.Mallaiah @ Malla Reddy (died) and 8 others …Respondents-Defendants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4111 OF 2007 ORDER: This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 14-08-2007, in I.A.No.609 of 2007 in O.S.No.279 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, whereunder and whereby while issuing temporary injunction imposed condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond on Rs.10/- affidavit within one month from the date of the order undertaking to compensate the respondents, if any loss and damage that respondents may suffer due to this temporary injunction and if ultimately respondents succeeds in their main suit and that the petitioner shall also undertake that he will co-operate with the respondents 2 to 4 in any joint action mutually agreed in fixing of the boundaries and demarcating of the land scientifically and its exact demarcation by lawful means and ways. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that he has not filed any appeal against the order passed insofar as grant of temporary injunction is concerned, but he filed this revision aggrieved by the direction given to the petitioner to give undertaking as stated above, which is exceeding its jurisdiction and therefore, Article 227 of the Constitution of India is amenable for such exceeding jurisdiction of the trial Court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that in view of the fact that the order was passed in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the appeal lies under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, but not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The facts in brief are in narrow compass. There cannot be any dispute that against the order passed in granting or refusing injunction in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, admittedly an appeal lies under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. The petitioner has not filed this revision aggrieved by the order of issuing temporary injunction. The only question is whether such riders can be added in the order. The case of the petitioner is that they purchased the land under the original of Exs.P1 and P2 and in pursuance of the sale deeds, they were put in possession of the property and they have been enjoying the property from 2005 onwards. When the respondents are trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment, they filed the present application. The trial Court after considering the documentary evidence available on record, found that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case in their favour with regard to title and the petitioner has got balance of convenience and if the respondents are not restrained by way of injunction, it would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner and all the three necessary ingredients for grant of injunction have been established, and accordingly granted injunction. The only question is whether such a condition can be imposed. It is not the case of the respondents that if the injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner, it would cause loss or damage to their property. In the absence of any such plea, the question of petitioner giving undertaking may not arise. The order is not well within the limits of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Similarly, the petitioner shall give undertaking that he will co- operate with the respondents 2 to 4 in any joint action for fixing of the boundaries and demarcating of the land scientifically has to be resolved in a separate forum by separate application. Therefore, imposing the above two conditions are not in accordance with law and the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Though respondents 2, 7 and 9 have not been served, no adverse orders have been passed against them. Therefore, their presence in this revision is not necessary. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 14-08-2007, in I.A.No.609 of 2007 in O.S.No.279 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, insofar as imposing two conditions are concerned. However, it is observed that deleting of above two paras will not disentitle the respondents to file necessary application before the concerned authority in accordance with law. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:12-04- 2010 Hsd