APHC010401902024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 21/2025 Between: 1. KONAKALA GURUNADHAM, S/O. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40, HINDU, FRIEND'S SHOE MART, CAR STREET, BAPATLA, RESIDENT OF S.N.P. AGRAHARAM, BAPATLA, BAPATIA JGC (DL) 2. PULI RAMBABU,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 45, HINDU, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, LAM FARM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC (D2 ) 3. SURAGANI SUBBA RAO, (D3) (DIED ON 11.10.2016) 4. SURAGANI BRAHMAIAH, (D4) (DIED ON 20.06.2007) 5. SURAGANI VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O. PUNNAIAH, AGED 43, HINDU, RESIDENT OF NEAR SRI PANDURANGASWAMY TEMPLE, KARLAPALEM ROAD, BAPATLA, BAPATLA J.C.J.C (D5) 6. SURAGANI TIRUPATHI RAO, , S/O. PUNNAIAH, AGED 40, HINDU, MASON, RESIDENT OF GODAVARIVEEDHI, RAILPET, BAPATLA, BAPATLA JCJC. (D6) 7. KARANKI PERAIAH, , S/O. LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED 66, HINDU, RETIRED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, RESIDENT OF KARANKIVARIPALEM, NAGARAM MANDAL, REPALLE J.C.J.C., PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 4/1 N.G.G.OS' COLONY, NARASARAOPET, NARASARAOPET JCJC (D7) (DIED ON 01.03.2017) 8. SURAGANI SUBBARAVAMMA(D8), W/O. LATE BRAHMAIAH, AGED 50, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD, R/O.NEAR SRI PANDURANGASWAMY TEMPLE, KARLAPALEM ROAD, BAPATLA, BAPATLA J.C.J.0 9. UDYAGIRI ANNAPURNA, , W/O. SREENIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD, R/O.MUPPAVARAM VILLAGE, PANGULURU MANDAL, ADDANKI J.C.J.C. (D9) 10. KARPURAPU LAKSHMI,, W/O.SUBBA RAMAIAH, AGED 2 CGR, J CMA.No.21 of 2025 ABOUT 28YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PAPARAJUTHOTA, CHIRALA, CHIRALA J.C.J.C. (D10) 11. SURAGANI YAMINI USHARANI,, AGED ABOUT 14, BEING MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, 8TH PLAINTIFF, SURAGANI SUBBARAVAMMA (D11) 12. SURAGANI VENKAMMA, (D12) (DIED 15.02.2014 AND NO L. RS NEED BE ADDED AS ALREADY HER LRS / PLAINTIFFS 4, 6 AND 7 ON RECORD) (DEFENDANTS 8 TO 12 ARE ADDED AS L.RS OF 4TH DEFENDANT AS PER ORDERS IN I.A.1149/2007, DT.31.10.2007) 13. SURAGANI VENKATA PURNACHANDRA RAO, , S/O.IATE SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40YEARS, HINDU, CARPENTER, R/O. NEAR SRI PANDURANGASWAMY TEMPLE, KARLAPALEM ROAD, BAPATLA, BAPATLA J.C.J.C(D13) 14. PERSA HYMAVATHI(D14),, W/O. VENKATA SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 37YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O.GAVINIVARIPAEM VILLAGE, CHIRALA MANDAL, CHIRALA J.C.J.0 15. SURAGANI MASTHAN RAO(D15),, S/O. LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34YEARS, HINDU, MASON COOLIE, R/O. NEAR SRI PANDURANGASWAMY TEMPLE, KARLAPALEM ROAD, BAPATLA, BAPATLA J.C.J.0 16. VEMULAKONDA ARUNA(D16),, W/O.RAVI, AGED ABOUT 30YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD, R/O.SUBBAIAHTHOTA, DARGA BAZAAR, CHILKALURIPET, CHILAKALURIPET J.C.J.C. (DEFENDANTS 13 TO 16 ARE THE L.RS. OF DECEASED 3RD DEFENDANT AS PER ORDERS DT.201/2017, DT.14.09.2017) 17. KARANKI SWARAJYA LAKSHMI(D17),, W/O.LATE PERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, HINDU, R/O. FLAT NO.404, SRI SAI RESIDENCY, NEAR OLD PANCHAYAT OFFICE, GUNDALA, VIJAYAWADA CITY, VIJAYAWADA J.C.J.C. 18. KARANKI VENKATA SUBBA RAO, , (D18) S/O.LATE PERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, HINDU, R/O. FLAT NO.404, SRI SAI RESIDENCY, NEAR OLD PANCHAYAT OFFICE, GUNDALA, VIJAYAWADA CITY, VIJAYAWADA J.C.J.C. 19. YEMINENI JAYALAKSHMI(D19),, W/O.SRINIVASA VARA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 48YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, 3 CGR, J CMA.No.21 of 2025 HINDU, R/O.MIG II 1/20, AISHWARYAM NAGAR, 3RD CROSS STREET, NINNAGARIAI, KATTAKULATHUR, MARMALAINAGAR, KANCHI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN CODE 603203, KANCHI J.C.J.C. (DEFENDANTS 17 TO 19 ARE L.RS., OF DECEASED 7TH DEFENDANT AS PER ORDERS DT.14.09.2017 IN I.A.760/2017) ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. ANANTHA VENKATA SUBBAMMA DIED, (DIED). 2. MADALA KOTESWARAMMADIED, W/O. RAMULU, AGED 53 YRS., HINDU, PROPERTIES, 2ND LINE, PATEL NAGAR, BAPATLA, BAPATLA J.C.J.C 3. MADALA SANTHAMMA, W/O. SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YRS., HINDU, AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOVADA, AMRUTHALUR MANDAL, TENALI J.C.J.C. 4. MADALA RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. RAMULU, AGED 30 YRS., HINDU, 2ND LINE PATEL NAGAR, BAPATLA. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.334/2005, DT.26-10-2005) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against orderspleased to allow the CMA thereby dismiss the Petition by setting aside order dt.25.06.2024 in I.A.175/2024 in A.S.90/2024 before the VI Additional District Judge, Bapatla grant costs throughout and 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 condone the delay of (87 ) in representing the CRP.SR.No. 31686 of2024, and to pass 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 pleased to suspend the status quo order dt.25.06.2024 in I.A. 175/2024 in A.S.90/2024 before the VI Additional District Judge, Bapatla and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K H V SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. N SRIRAM MURTHY 4 CGR, J CMA.No.21 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 21/2025 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’) assailing the order dated 25.06.2024, passed in I.A. No.175 of 2024 in A.S. No.90 of 2024 on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge at Bapatla. The appellants herein are defendants in the suit. 2. Initially, suit came to be instituted by respondents herein- plaintiffs vide O.S. No.23 of 2002 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Bapatla, for permanent injunction. The trial Court had granted ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The suit was contested and ultimately, the same was tried along with O.S. No.77 of 2006 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, instituted by respondents herein, for perpetual injunction. By judgment and decree dated 05.02.2024, the suit filed by respondents herein for perpetual injunction, came to be rejected and the one filed by appellants 5 CGR, J CMA.No.21 of 2025 herein vide O.S.No.46 of 2004, for specific performance, was decreed. 3. Aggrieved by which, the unsuccessful plaintiffs/respondents herein preferred A.S. No.90 of 2024 before the appellate Court along with I.A. No.175 of 2024 for interim injunction. The appellate Court, initially, issued notice and thereafter, upon entering of appearance for respondent Nos. 1, 5, 6 to 8, 10, 13, and 15 on 01.05.2024 and respondent Nos.9 and 11 on 18.06.2024, as respective respondents did not file any counter- affidavit, and that the appellants therein insisted for interim injunction, as their possession was sought to be interfered, directed the parties to maintain status quo by order dated 25.06.2024. The appellants herein stated to have filed their counter-affidavit on 01.07.2024. However, the lower appellate Court has been continuing the order of status quo. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri K.H.V.Siva Kumar, learned counsel for appellants and Sri N.Sri Ram Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that as a suit has been dismissed with a specific finding that plaintiffs, in their cross- examination, admitted to the aspect of they being forcibly dispossessed, the trial Court has concluded that they were not in 6 CGR, J CMA.No.21 of 2025 possession and therefore, rejected the prayer for permanent injunction, which aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by lower appellate Court while ordering status quo. Merely based on analogy that appellants had the benefit of ad interim injunction throughout the suit, the status quo order was passed in a manner not in consonance with the requirements of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. At any rate, as now the appellants herein have filed a counter-affidavit in I.A., the appellate Court ought to have considered the same and disposed the I.A. on merits. 6. Opposing aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that appellants before trial Court had, all through, been protected by ad interim injunction since institution of suit in the year 2002. Thus, their possession was protected, and as the appeal being continuation of the proceedings in the suit, they are entitled to be protected with similar injunction. Insofar as findings recorded by trial Court with regard to plaintiffs being forcibly dispossessed are concerned, the same are erroneous and is under challenge in the appeal. Therefore, rightly, the appellate court has ordered status quo to be maintained and the same needs no interference. 7. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 7 CGR, J CMA.No.21 of 2025 8. It is not in dispute that suit for perpetual injunction was instituted in the year 2002. The trial Court initially granted ad interim injunction, and the same was made absolute pending suit. The suit has been now dismissed by judgment and decree dated 05.02.2024. Meaning thereby, from 2002 to 2024, for almost twenty two years, there was an ad interim injunction in favor of a plaintiffs/ respondents herein. The same weighed in the mind of lower appellate Court while ordering status quo. 9. Though learned counsel for appellants tried to contend that in the teeth of findings recorded by trial Court regarding possession of property, the appellants before trial Court are not entitled to continue with the same protection, this Court is not impressed with such contention, for the reason that the findings of the trial Court are under challenge before appellate Court, until and unless the same are decided on merits, the said findings would not attain finality. 10. As all through pending suit, there had been order of ad interim injunction, rightly the lower appellate Court has extended the benefit of status quo pending the appeal, in order to maintain continuity. This Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the present appeal by continuing the order of status quo, with a direction to 8 CGR, J CMA.No.21 of 2025 the lower appellate Court to decide the very appeal itself expeditiously, rather than dealing with interlocutory application. 11. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of by directing the lower appellate Court to dispose of A.S. No.90 of 2024, on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge, Bapatla, 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 disposal, the order of status quo as directed by lower appellate Court shall continue. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 07.08.2025 KBN