IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.6361 OF 2009 Between: Danuguru Suramma and another …Petitioner A n d Danuguri Srinu and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.6361 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2009 in I.A.No.184 of 2009 in O.S.No.134 of 2009, on the file of the Special Assistant Agent (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein for injunction was allowed, granting injunction restraining the petitioners herein, the defendants, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the schedule land of Ac.5-04 gts in Sy.No.73 and Ac.5-10 gts in Sy.No.79 of Mothepattinagar village, Burgampahad Mandal of Khammam District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The main contention of the petitioners/defendants is that the 1st petitioner/D-1 filed a suit O.S.No.90 of 2005 against the respondents herein, the defendants, for a permanent injunction in respect of the same property and by judgment and decree dated 05.10.2005 injunction was granted in favour of the 1st petitioner herein/D-1 and that the 1st petitioner/D-1 filed E.P.No.14 of 2008 for execution of the decree and also filed E.A.No.1 of 2008 seeking police protection for peaceful enjoyment of the schedule land and by order dated 23.04.2008, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate allowed the said application and directed the SHO, Burgampahad Police Station to give necessary protection to the decree holder, the 1st petitioner herein, in the matter of enjoyment of the suit land. The petitioners would, therefore, contend that the 1st petitioner herein filed W.P.No.6584 of 2009 questioning the inaction of the police to accord protection and this Court by order dated 11.06.2009 disposed of the writ petition in view of the counter-affidavit filed by the SHO wherein an unequivocal undertaking was given to render police protection to the 1st petitioner herein as and when required. The petitioners would, therefore, contend that suppressing the earlier proceedings, the respondents herein filed a fresh suit O.S.No.134 of 2009 and obtained an ex parte interim injunction in I.A.No.184 of 2009. As seen from the copies of the schedule of property filed in the two suits, the subject matter in both the suits is one and the same. An order of injunction has already been granted in favour of the 1st petitioner herein while decreeing the suit O.S.No.90 of 2005 on 05.10.2005 and the 1st petitioner put the decree to execution also and obtained police protection in the matter of enjoyment of the suit land. The impugned order does not refer to the earlier proceedings though they were virtually between the same parties and in respect of the same land. Grant of an injunction in favour of the respondents herein in the light of the earlier order of injunction granted in favour of the 1st petitioner in respect of the same land, is inconceivable. 4. As the impugned order is said to have been passed ex parte, it is considered just and necessary that an opportunity be given to the petitioners herein to contest the matter before appropriate orders are passed in I.A.No.184 of 2009. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Special Assistant Agent (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein and for disposal in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed accordingly as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 06th September, 2011 Lrkm