APHC010386922024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2191/2024 Between: 1. BOLLENI LAKSHUMAIAH, S/O KONDAIAH CULTIVATION, R/O. KANAGUDURU VILLAGE, DUVV KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. MAJJARI SRINIVASULU, S/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,BUSINESS, R/O SRI NO.8, VASTHU COMPLEX, MYDUKUR ROAD, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 1. BOLLENI KONDAIAH, S/O KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O KANGUDURU VILLAGE, DU KADAPA DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MEDARA SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: Nil The Court made the following: 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD REVISION PETITION NO: 2191/2024 BOLLENI LAKSHUMAIAH, S/O KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, /O. KANAGUDURU VILLAGE, DUVVUR MA MAJJARI SRINIVASULU, S/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,BUSINESS, R/O SRI SRINIVASA ENTERPRISES ROOM NO.8, VASTHU COMPLEX, MYDUKUR ROAD, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND BOLLENI KONDAIAH, S/O KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O KANGUDURU VILLAGE, DUVVUR MANDAL ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): MEDARA SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3328] NINETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA ABOUT 50 YEARS, UR MANDAL, MAJJARI SRINIVASULU, S/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 47 SRINIVASA ENTERPRISES ROOM NO.8, VASTHU COMPLEX, MYDUKUR ROAD, PRODDATUR TOWN ...PETITIONER(S) BOLLENI KONDAIAH, S/O KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R MANDAL, YSR ...RESPONDENT 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri M. Siva Prasad, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner. 2. It transpires from the record that personal service of Notice on sole Respondent was served on 11.11.2024. Despite service of Notice, Sole Respondent has not evinced any interest in appearing before the Court either in person or through a Counsel. In this view of the matter, this Court is constrained to set the said Respondent ex parte and proceed with the Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Respondent is set ex parte. 3. For the disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition, the facts touching on the merit of the Suit is not necessary. Suffice it to state that the Petitioners herein are the Defendants and the sole Respondent is the Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.269 of 2019 seeking Permanent Injunction. Plaintiff also filed I.A.No.1378 of 2019 seeking Ad-interim Temporary Injunction. The Civil Judge -Cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Mydukur (Junior Division) vide Order dated 31.12.2019, has passed the following Order: “This Court doth order that, issue ad-interim injunction against the respondents, and their men and agents from in any way interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property by the petitioner till 10-01-2020. Comply order 39 rule 3 of C.P.C call on 10-01-2020.” 4. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Defendants in I.A.No.1378 of 2019. It transpires that the said Counter-Affidavit was filed on or above 18.02.2020. 5. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the docket Orders passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mydukur and would submit that despite the fact that the Counter-Affidavit was filed within three weeks, the Court did not pass any final Order in I.A.No.1378 of 2019. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged this Court seeking a 3 direction to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mydukur to consider the Interlocutory Application bearing I.A.No.1378 of 2019 and pass a final Order on merit. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 3-A of Order 39 of C.P.C to indicate that there is a mandate on the part of the Civil Court to pass the final Order within a specified time. Rule 3-A of Order 39 of Code of Civil Procedure is usefully extracted here under: “3-A. Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days:- Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability.” 7. In view of the statutory mandate, the Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Junior Division), Mydukur is directed to consider the I.A.No.1378 of 2019 in O.S.No.269 of 2019 on merit, by passing a Speaking Order within a period of eight (08) weeks from today. 8. With these observations and directions, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 29.01.2025 DSV