c APHC010427462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI 'i FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE-^ AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 918 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated07-07-2025 in W.P.No.16532 of 2025 on the file of High Court..- Between: Kothuru Govindu, S/o. Venkata Swamy, aged 59 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Peturu(V), Pedda Upparapalle Post, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^ AND 1. Nagasani Nagamani, W/o. Chengal Rayappa, aged 70 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. Peturu(V), Pedda Upparapalle Post, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER.- 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur. 3. Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh Mangatagiri, Guntur District. 4. Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District at Chittoor. 5. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palamaneru, Chittoor District. 6. Inspector of Police, Chowdepalty Police Station, Chittoor District. 7. Sub Inspector of Police, Somala Police Station Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS^ lA 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 to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Judgment dt. 07.07.2025 passed in W.P.No. 16532/2025 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. _ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASULU KURRA _ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7: GP FOR HOME ^ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010427462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-i7 AT AMARAVATI [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 918 of 2025 Kothuru Govindu ...Appellant Vs. Nagasani Nagamani and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant Mr. Srinivasulu Kurra Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. Subba Rao Korrapati for R.1 CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : 22"'* August, 2025 DATE PC : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 07.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.16532 of 2025. 2. The petitioner (respondent No.1) is a plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Punganur, in which the trial Court proceeded to pass an order of injunction which has since been challenged by the appellant herein. However, no specific orders in that case have been issued staying the operation of order of injunction passed by the trial Court. 2 HCJ & RC, J WA 918_2025 In the meantime, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16532 of 2025 seeking the aid of police to ensure that the order of injunction passed in the civil suit was complied with in letter and spirit. A representation is stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 13.06.2025 with the police agencies. 3. 4. By virtue of the order impugned, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to consider the representation and also to ensure that the orders passed by the civil Court are complied with in letter and spirit. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is a defendant in the suit. It is stated that in the representation filed by the petitioner, apart from the parcel of land which is otherwise the subject matter of dispute and also the subject matter of the order of injunction, land which is not in dispute was also mentioned. 5. The apprehension is that in the guise of consideration of the representation, the petitioner would misuse the police agency to grab even that portion over which she has no right or title and which is not a subject matter of the suit much less the order of injunction passed by the trial Court. 6. On a perusal of the order impugned, it can be seen that there are no specific directions passed by the learned single Judge which would have otherwise given rise to any apprehension to the appellant that land which is otherwise not forming a subject matter of the order of injunction should be 7. HCJ & RC, J WA_918_2025 interfered with. In fact, the order impugned clearly states that the authorities should ensure that the order passed by the civil Court is complied with in letter and spirit. Even when we find that the order impugned warrants interference, yet we clarify that the authorities with a view to ensure implementation of the order passed by the civil Court in letter and spirit would ensure that no land which is otherwise not a subject matter of the suit or the order of injunction should be interfered with. 8. no 9. The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR // St- SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// /I I . To, 1. The Principal Secretary. Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur. 2. The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District at Chittoor. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palamaneru, Chittoor District, of Police, Chowdepally Police Station, Chittoor District. 4. The 5. The Inspector 6. The Sub Inspector of Police, Somala Police Station Chittoor Distridf. 7. One CC to Sri Srinivasuiu Kurra, Advocate [OPUC] " ✓ 8. One CC to Sri Subba Rao Korrapati. Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCS to GP for Home. High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:22/08/2025 JUDGMENT WA No. 918 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS