APHC010311162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 537/2024 Between: 1. MUMMINA CHITTIMMA, W/O APPARAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 12-56, AGANAMPUDI VILLAGE, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PANDURI GOVINDA RAO, S/O SANYASI NAIDU (DIED) 2. DASARI SURESH BABU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O Q.NO.301/C, SECTOR-VI, UKKUNAGARAM VISHAKHAPATNAM, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. PANDURI LAKSHMI, D/O LATE PANDURI GOVINDA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 5-44/1, DIBBAPALEM (VILLAGE), AGANAMPUDI POST, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISHAKHAPATNAM, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 4. PANDURI RATNAKAR, S/O LATE PANDURI GOVINDA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 5-44/1, DIBBAPALEM (VILLAGE), AGANAMPUDI POST, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISHAKHAPATNAM, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 5. PALLELA HYMA, D/O LATE PANDURI GOVINDA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 5-44/1, DIBBAPALEM (VILLAGE), AGANAMPUDI POST, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISHAKHAPATNAM, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO 5 WERE ADDED AS LRS OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT AS PER ORDERS DATED 27-09-2023 IN I.A.NO.73 OF 2019) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against orderspleased to set aside the Decree and the Order dated 06.05.2024 made in I.A.No.97 of 2024 in A.S.No. 21 of 2018 on the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gajuwaka Vishakhapatnam District and allow the appeal and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 grant ad-interim exparte injunction restraining the Respondents, their men, agents and whoever acts on their behalf from ever interfering with my peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petition schedule property in any manner or whatsoever in suit schedule property, pending disposal of the above appeal and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 grant stay all further proceedings in A.S.No.21 of 2018 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gajuwaka, Vishakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Dr SAYYED BABU SHAIK 2. . 3. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 537/2024 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against order dated 06.05.2024 passed in I.A. No.97 of 2024 in A.S.No.21 of 2018 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gajuwaka. Appellant is plaintiff and respondents are defendants in the suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Plaintiff filed O.S. No.358 of 2009 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka seeking permanent injunction. He, also filed I.A. No.731 of 2009 for ad interim injunction. Initially, the same came to be ordered. Assailing the same, the defendants preferred C.M.A. No.01 of 2011 before learned Senior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka. The same came to be allowed by order dated 27.08.2012, reversing the orders in I.A. No.731 of 2009 in O.S. No.358 of 2009. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred CRP No.6066 of 2012 before this Court. Initially, this Court passed an order of status quo and later, by final order dated 16.06.2017 disposed of the revision by directing both parties to 2 CGR, J CMSA. No.537 of 2024 maintain status quo and further directed that the trial court to dispose of the very suit itself expeditiously and not later than six months. Accordingly, by judgment and decree dated 21.03.2018, the suit came to be dismissed. Assailing the same, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.21 of 2018 before learned XIII Additional District Judge at Gajuwaka. He also filed I.A. No.97 of 2024 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of ad interim injunction. The same has been rejected by impugned order dated 06.05.2024. Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri A.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for appellant and Dr.Sayyed Babu Shaik, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellate court has not adverted to any of the contentions raised and without rendering specific findings on the aspects of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, simply brushed aside the grounds urged by merely referring to the findings recorded by the trial court, which is clearly erroneous and perverse. The appellate court ought to have independently examined the grounds urged by the appellant for the purpose of 3 CGR, J CMSA. No.537 of 2024 considering the parameters enunciated under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, which are clearly lacking in the present case. He also submitted that since filing of suit, the appellant had the protection of ad interim injunction or status quo, which subsisted till disposal of the suit, therefore, even on the count of equity, the appellate court ought to have considered the same while deciding the application. 6. Per contra, opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for respondents tried to support the impugned order by contending that, as the appellant had miserably failed in suit, no new case has been pleaded or established for him to be granted injunction at appellate stage. The appellate court has rightly rejected the relief claimed upon consideration of the plea urged and also material available on record, therefore, the same does not require any interference. 7. Perused the record. 8. The order in challenge rejected the application of appellant for grant of injunction. Though appellant raised substantial grounds, the same came to be rejected by appellate court summarily in two paragraphs i.e., in Paragraphs 9 and 10. This 4 CGR, J CMSA. No.537 of 2024 Court finds that the approach of appellate court in deciding the application without considering the parameters of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss would go to the root of the matter in disposal of the application. Merely because the trial court has rendered certain findings and expressed an opinion, the same itself cannot be construed to be final, rather the appellate court ought to have applied its mind independently and come to conclusion whether the plaintiff/applicant had made out prima facie case and there existed balance of convenience and what was the irreparable loss on account of grant or refusal of injunction. The same is lacking in the present case. 9. Keeping that the appellant had protection all through and even this Court in C.R.P. No.6066 of 2012 directed parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the main suit, this Court feels that it would be just and appropriate to continue the same arrangement till the appeal is decided. 10. Accordingly, this CMA is allowed and the order dated 06.05.2024 passed in I.A. No.97 of 2024 in A.S. No.21 of 2018 is hereby set aside and the parties are directed to maintain status 5 CGR, J CMSA. No.537 of 2024 quo and further, the appellate court is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably not less than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further it is made clear that the appeal shall be decided uninfluenced by any of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 30.07.2025 SS