Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10216 (AP)

MATHIREDDI RAJU BABU v. MATHIREDDI SATHYANARAYANA

CRP/1229/2025 · 2025-09-03

R Raghunandan Rao

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010115012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1229/2025 Between: 1. MATHIREDDI RAJU BABU, S/O. LATE RAJULU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O. BANGARAYYAPETA VILLAGE, H/O. VEMULAPUDI NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MATHIREDDI SATHYANARAYANA, S/O. LATE KONDA NAIDU R/O. BANGARAYYAPETA VILLAGE, H/O. VEMULAPUDI, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. MATHIREDDI MANIDORA NAIDU, , S/O. SATHYANARAYANA, R/O. BANGARAYYAPETA VILLAGE, H/O. VEMULAPUDI, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. MATHIREDDI RAMU, S/O. SATHYANARAYANA R/O. BANGARAYYAPETA VILLAGE, H/O. VEMULAPUDI, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. MATHIREDDI TATABBAI, S/O. APPALA NAIDU R/O. BANGARAYYAPETA VILLAGE, H/O. VEMULAPUDI, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to allow the C.R.P. by setting aside the orders passed in I.A. No. 379/2024 in O.S. No. 256/2021, dt 09-01-2005 by the learned 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1229 of 2025 Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam by allowing the above C.R.P. pending on the file of this Honble Court and to pass 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 pleased to direct S.H.O., Narsipatnam Police to grant Police aid at the time of cutting the Casurina tope in respect suit schedule properties in O.S. No. 256/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam pending C.R.P. on the file of this Hon’ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P.NANULU NAIDU 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1229 of 2025 The Court made the following order: The petitioner herein had moved O.S.No.256 of 2021, before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam, for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.96 cents of land in Sy.No.69-8 of Vemulapudi Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The case of the petitioner was that he was the owner of the said land and having purchased the said land, had raised casuarina tope in the said land. 2. The petitioner had also sought an interim injunction, by way of I.A.No.2 of 2021, restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land, pending the suit. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, had granted an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, over the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. C.M.A.No.2 of 2024, which was filed by the respondents before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, against the aforesaid order, is still pending and no interim directions have been granted in this appeal. 3. The petitioner again moved the Trial Court, by way of I.A.No.379 of 2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2021, seeking police aid for cutting down of casuarina tope in the schedule property. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the Trial Court, by an order, dated 09.01.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1229 of 2025 4. The Trial Court took the view that the order of injunction was only to protect possession and enjoyment of the property, in favour of the petitioner and that granting police aid for the purpose of cutting down of casuarina tope, which is claimed by the respondents as well, would not be appropriate unless the issues are decided in a full-length trial. 5. Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Trial Court, having granted interim injunction, in relation to possession and enjoyment of the property, is also required to give necessary police protection, for the purpose of implementing the said injunction order. He would contend that the interim injunction given by the Trial Court would be useless unless necessary Police protection is also given for proper enjoyment of the property, which would include the right to cut down casuarina tope and to sell its produce. 6. There is no appearance for the respondents despite service of notice. 7. A perusal of the order shows that the Trial Court took the view that the order of injunction, granted in I.A.No.2 of 2021, cannot be extended to mean that the petitioner is to be given Police protection, for the purpose of cutting down casuarina tope. The Trial Court held that such an action can be permited only after a final decision is taken in the main suit. 5 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1229 of 2025 8. This Court is in agreement with this view of the Trial Court. However, the fact remains that an early decision is necessary for determining the rights and claims of the petitioner as well as the respondents. 9. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam, to dispose of O.S.No.256 of 2021, at the earliest and at any rate, not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Needless to say, even the respondents/defendants cannot be permitted to cut down the casuarina tope and in the event of any such action being taken by the respondents, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court for Police protection to stop such cutting down of casuarina tope. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 04.09.2025 MJA 6 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1229 of 2025 425 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1229 of 2025 04.09.2025 MJA