APHC010254432021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 188/2021 Between: 1. SENAPATHI KOTA RAO, S/O LATE SEETHAMNAIDU, AGED 86 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, R/OKOTTAM (V), SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM 2. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, , SRUGAVARAPUKOTA, VIZIANAGARAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____ against orders to present this memorandum of civil miscellaneous appeal to this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Decree order in I.A. No 228/ 2020 in A.S. No 39 OF 2019 on the file of Prl. District Judge Vizianagaram.,dt.26-08-2020 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the schedule land or in any way dispossessing the Petitioner from the schedule property or obliterating its physical features, which is subject matter of 2 I.A.No.228 of 2020 in A.S.No.39 of 2019 on the file of Prl. District Judge, Vizianagaram, pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M RAMMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION 2. K S NAGENDRA VARA PRASAD 3 The Court made the following Judgment: The present appeal arises against order dated 26.08.2020 passed in I.A.No.228 of 2020 in A.S.No.39 of 2019 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, rejecting application filed by appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’)for grant of temporary injunction restraining respondents from interfering with suit schedule property including dispossession from the same. 2. Appellant is plaintiff. He filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction vide O.S.No.163 of 1992 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarapukota, the same came to be dismissed on contest. He preferred A.S.No.64 of 1998, which eventually came to be allowed and remanded by judgment and decree dated 23.07.2002. Yet again the suit came to be dismissed on 29.01.2007. He further preferred A.S.No.38 of 2007, which later came to be once again remanded by judgment and decree dated 30.03.2011. However, the suit yet again came to be dismissed on 01.04.2019. Assailing the same, he preferred A.S.No.39 of 2019. Along with said appeal, as respondents stated to have tried to change the boundaries, and also interfering with possession of appellant, I.A.No.228 of 2020 came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C., the same has been dismissed by impugned order dated 26.08.2020. Assailing the same, he preferred present appeal. 4 3. This Court, initially, while issuing notices to respondents by order dated 05.08.2021, granted ad-interim injunction restraining respondents from interfering with suit schedule property until further orders. The appeal is stated to be still pending for consideration. 4. Learned counsel for appellant tried to advance arguments on merits of the matter. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for arbitration appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand, tried to sustain the order in challenge. 6. As this Court granted ad-interim injunction way back on 05.08.2021, and considerable time has passed, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said order or status of parties. 7. The appeal suit is of the year 2019. Therefore, in the better interest of both parties, it would be desirable to dispose of the present appeal with direction to learned appellate Court for expeditious disposal of very appeal itself. 8. Having considered the material on record and submissions made by respective learned counsel, in the interest of justice, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of, by directing the learned appellate Court to decide the very appeal itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, 5 ad-interim injunction granted by this Court shall continue. The Appellate Court shall decide the appeal without reference to, or being influenced by, extension of ad-interim injunction. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 29.07.2025 KBN