HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.949 and 951 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Since the petitioners and the respondents are common in both the revision petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of at the stage of admission. CRP.Nos.949 and 951 of 2011 are filed against the common order dated 16.12.2010 of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.Nos.1822 and 1823 of 2010 in O.S.No.389 of 2010, whereby the applications, filed by the petitioners seeking permission to file reply affidavits to the counters filed by the respondents in I.A.Nos.1729 and 1730 of 2010, were dismissed. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the registered sale deeds dated 03.06.2010, executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the respondents-defendant Nos.3 to 6 in respect of the plaint schedule properties, were not binding on them and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed two interlocutory applications viz., I.A.No.1729 of 2010 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the plaint schedule property and I.A.No.1730 of 2010 to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession over the plaint schedule property. The Court below granted ad-interim injunction, in both the applications, on 26.11.2010. It is stated that the respondents-defendant Nos.3 to 6 filed counters in the said applications. Thereafter, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed the present applications viz., I.A.Nos.1822 and 1823 of 2010, under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, seeking permission to file reply affidavits as rejoinders. The Court below dismissed the applications observing that the rejoinders cannot be entertained, more so, they are in the nature of arguments. Admittedly, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed I.A.Nos.1729 and 1730 of 2010 for temporary injunction and to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession in respect of the plaint schedule property respectively. There was no need for the petitioners to file the applications under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to file reply affidavits. However, in an injunction application, the petitioners got a right to file reply. Therefore, the Court below ought to have taken into consideration the reply affidavits filed by the petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are set aside holding that the applications filed by the petitioners in I.A.Nos.1822 and 1823 of 2010 are unnecessary. The Court below is directed to take into consideration the reply affidavits filed to the counters in I.A.Nos.1729 and 1730 of 2010 and dispose of the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, allowed. V. ESWARAIAH,J Date:15.04.2011 usd