APHC010136872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. P.VASANTHA @ VASANTHI @ VASANTHAMMA,, W/O.MALYADRI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D.NO.6 ANANTAPURAM (ADHAAR NO.7564 5810 4057). 1. P C RAMANAIAH, S/o.Vengaiah R/o.D.No.299, Street No.100, Lecturers Colony, Near Water Tank, Anantapuram (Adhaar No.8076 5118 8762). Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the pleased to modify the impugned order to the extent of not extending the status quo passed by the Learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gooty, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2024, whereby th 28.03.2024 in I.A. No. 834 of 2019 in O.S. No. 331 of 2019 was set aside without extending a status quo orders. (b) Grant an order of status quo and restrain the respondent from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property pending final adjudication of I.A. No. 834 of 2019 in O.S. No. 331 of 2019, I.A.NO. 81/2020 by trail court, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 698/2025 P.VASANTHA @ VASANTHI @ VASANTHAMMA,, W/O.MALYADRI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D.NO.6-2-196, KOVUR NAGAR, ANANTAPURAM (ADHAAR NO.7564 5810 4057). ...PETITIONER AND P C RAMANAIAH, S/o.Vengaiah, aged 80 years, business, R/o.D.No.299, Street No.100, Lecturers Colony, Near Water Tank, Anantapuram (Adhaar No.8076 5118 8762). ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to modify the impugned order to the extent of not extending the status quo passed by the Learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gooty, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2024, whereby th 28.03.2024 in I.A. No. 834 of 2019 in O.S. No. 331 of 2019 was set aside without extending a status quo orders. (b) Grant an order of status quo and restrain the respondent from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule g final adjudication of I.A. No. 834 of 2019 in O.S. No. 331 of 2019, I.A.NO. 81/2020 by trail court, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI P.VASANTHA @ VASANTHI @ VASANTHAMMA,, W/O.MALYADRI, 196, KOVUR NAGAR, ...PETITIONER , aged 80 years, business, R/o.D.No.299, Street No.100, Lecturers Colony, Near Water Tank, ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to modify the impugned order to the extent of not extending the status quo passed by the Learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gooty, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2024, whereby the order dated 28.03.2024 in I.A. No. 834 of 2019 in O.S. No. 331 of 2019 was set aside without extending a status quo orders. (b) Grant an order of status quo and restrain the respondent from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule g final adjudication of I.A. No. 834 of 2019 in O.S. No. 331 of 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order of "status quo” and restrain the respondent from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property pending disposal of the CRP IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order as granted in CRP.No.698 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025, pending disposal of the above said Civil Revision Petition and consequently dismiss the above said revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POTHAMSETTY JAYA PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V SURENDRA REDDY 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3 of 2024 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, whereby the appeal was allowed and the order dated 28.03.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No.834 of 2019 in Original Suit No.331 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, was set aside, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that: The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.331 of 2019. The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed the said suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of sale. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.834 of 2019, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant and his men from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the said application by order dated 28.03.2024. Aggrieved by said order, the plaintiff preferred CMA No.3 of 2024. The appellate Court allowed the said appeal setting aside the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gooty in I.A.No.834 of 2019 and remanded to the trial Court with a direction to consider the application afresh after deciding the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in accordance with law. Questioning the said 4 order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed particularly insofar as the appellate Court declined to grant an order of status quo pending disposal of the interlocutory application. 3. Heard Sri Pothasetty Jaya Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application filed before the trial Court, contended that prior to filing the suit for Specific Performance, the petitioner/plaintiff issued a legal notice on 04.07.2019, to which the defendant issued a reply notice dated 08.11.2019. After receipt of legal notice, the defendant executed a partition deed, dated 05.11.2019 and subsequently executed a gift deed dated 11.11.2019 in favour of his daughter. He further submitted that apprehending creation of third party interest and with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.834 of 2019 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from further alienation of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. However, the said application came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred CMA No.3 of 2024, wherein the appellate Court granted an order of status quo, however, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. He further contended that though a specific request was made by the plaintiff for continuation of the status quo order, the appellate Court declined to extend 5 the same. He further submitted that if the defendant creates any third party interest in the suit schedule property, it would not only prejudice the rights of the petitioner, but would also result in multifarious litigation. He further submitted that this Court by interim order dated 19.03.2025, directed the trial Court to pass fresh orders in I.A. No.834 of 2019 as per the directions of the VI Additional District Judge, Gooty in CMA No.3 of 2024, dated 05.03.2025. Despite such directions, the trial Court did not pass orders. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as against the orders passed by the appellate Court, revision is not maintainable. He further submitted that despite the directions issued by this Court, the trial Court has not yet passed the orders in the interlocutory application. He further submitted that the status quo granted by the appellate Court was only a temporary measure and if the same is permitted to continue indefinitely, the Court may not pass further orders in the matter. He further contended that the suit itself is barred by limitation under Section 54 of the Limitation Act. In such circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the same. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed questioning the remand order passed by the appellate Court insofar as it declined to continue the status quo order pending consideration of I.A.No.834 of 2019 by the trial Court. He further 6 contended that the objections raised by the respondent with regard to maintainability of the revision is unsustainable under law and therefore prayed to pass appropriate orders. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In a suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of sale, I.A.No.834 of 2019 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant and his men from creating any third party interest in the suit schedule property. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred CMA No.3 of 2024, wherein the appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration of I.A.No.834 of 2019. Admittedly, an order of status quo was granted pending C.M.A.No.3 of 2024. 9. The main grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non-continuation of the status quo order granted during the pendency of C.M.A. No.3 of 2024, till disposal of I.A. No. 834 of 2019 by the trial Court after fresh consideration. I.A. No. 834 of 2019 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial Court, wherein on appeal, the appellate Court set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the appeal, an order of status quo was granted. 7 10. The contention of the petitioner is that in the absence of continuation of the said status quo order, there is a likelihood of creation of third-party interest, resulting in multiplicity of proceedings. However, it is well settled that granting or continuation of interim protection is a matter of judicial discretion, and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Once the appellate Court has disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter for fresh consideration, the interim order granted during the pendency of the appeal does not automatically survive unless specifically extended. At the same time, considering the nature of the dispute, particularly in a suit for Specific Performance of agreement of sale and to balance the interests of both parties, it is appropriate to ensure that the main interlocutory application itself is decided expeditiously by the trial Court. To meet the ends of justice, it is appropriate to continue the status quo order till disposal of Interlocutory Application. However, the same would not come in the way while passing orders in Interlocutory Application. It is brought to the notice of this Court that despite directions issued by this Court, the interlocutory application is still pending before the trial Court. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the rights of both parties, this Court is inclined to pass the following order. The trial Court is directed to decide I.A.No.834 of 2019 in O.S.No.331 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gooty within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of hearing 8 of the parties concerned. Till disposal of the said Interlocutory Application, an order of status quo shall be maintained. The trial Court is directed to deal with the interlocutory application No.834 of 2019 in O.S.No.331 of 2019 independently and uninfluenced by the observations made in the Civil Revision Petition. It is made clear that both parties shall extend their cooperation for early disposal of the said interlocutory application and the trial Court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments to either party. 12. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 07.05.2026 MP 9 283 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 698 of 2025 Date: 07.05.2026 MP 10