ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner filed O.S. No.144 of 2006 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda against the respondents, for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. According to him, the suit schedule property was purchased under a document, dated 19-11-1996 and when he was proceeding with the construction after obtaining permission from the Municipality, the respondents started interfering with the same on 23-3-2006. He also filed I.A.No.378 of 2006 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. intially, and order of temporary injunction was passed on 24-3-2006 and after contest by the respondents, it was made absolute on 2-8-2006. Complaining that the respondents, continued to interfere with the construction, the petitioner filed I.A.No.527 of 2006 for grant of police-aid and the I.A. was ordered on 7-10-2006.
2. The respondents filed I.A. (SR) No. 3082 of 2006 under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. with a prayer to modify the order of temporary injunction. It was dismissed on 1-11-2006. Simultaneously, the respondents filed I.A. No. 1291 of 2006 under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. with a prayer to grant temporary injunction in their favour. The trial Court dismissed the application on the same day i.e., on 1-11-2006. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed CM.A. No. 22 of 2006 in the Court of the District Judge, Nalgonda. The C.M.A was allowed on 16-11-2006.
3. Sri M. Subba Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that when an order of temporary injunction is in force between the same parties, the question of granting temporary injunction in favour of a respondent therein, does not arise. The learned Counsel further submits that such a course would result in nullifying the order of temporary injunction granted between the same parties and in the same proceedings.
4. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the changed circumstances, ever since the order of temporary injunction was granted, warranted the filing of I.A. No. 1291 of 2006 and that no exception can be taken to the order under revision.
5. From the facts referred to above, it is clear that as of now, an order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court in I.A. No. 378 of 2006 is in force. The attempt made by the respondents to get it modified by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. did not fructify. The respondents made an independent effort to obtain an order of temporary injunction against the petitioner, the plaintiff in the suit. During the course of its discussion, the trial Court made an observation that grant of temporary injunction in favour of a defendants is almost a rare exception. The lower appellate Court disagreed with this observation and held that it is permissible to grant temporary injunction in favour of the defendants also in certain cases. In the process, the question as to whether the circumstances warrant the grant of temporary injunction in favour of the respondents herein, was not dealt with in detail.
6. As long as an order of temporary injunction operates as between the same parties, the only course open to an aggrieved party is either to file an appeal or the revision as the case may be or to seek modification by citing the changed circumstances, if any. The respondents made an effort in this direction, but was not successful. The result is that they are injuncted from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner. Therefore, it was not at all open to them to seek temporary injunction against the petitioner herein. Though it is permissible in certain cases for the Courts to grant temporary injunction in favour of the defendants also, the feasibility of granting such a relief would depend upon the facts of the concerned case. Under no circumstances, a Court can grant temporary injunction in favour of a defendant, as long as an order of temporary injunction was operating against him.
7. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably before the Court closes for summer vacation. There shall be no order as to costs.