APHC010444542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI B THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGU TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2142 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 19-08-2025, passed in I.A.No.268/2025 in O.S.No.325/2025 the file of Hon'ble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Adoni. on Between: 1. S.M.Gulamali, S/o. Late Mohiddin Sab, Aged about 53 R/o.H.No. 19/295, Fareed Sab Street, Adoni 2. S.lbrahim @ Bashu, S/o. Late S.Mohiddin Sab Carpenter, R/o. D.No. 19/295, Fareed District. years. Electrician Kurnool District. Aged about 55 years. Sab Street, Adoni, Kurnool 3. S.Hashmath Banu, W/o. Late Fareed Sab Aged about 55 years, R/o. D.No. 19/295, Fareed Sab Street, Adoni, Kurnool District. 4. S.Parveen Sulthana, D/o. Late Fareed Sab, Aged about 27 D.No. 19/295, Fareed Sab Street, Adoni, Kurnool District. 5. S. Sabina, D/o. Late Fareed Sab, Aged about 19/295, Fareed Sab Street, Adoni, Kurnool District. 6. S. Shabana Banu, D/o Late Fareed Sab, D.No. 19/295, Fareed Sab Street, Adoni, 7. S. Khasim Ali, S/o Late Fareed Sab, years, R/o. 25 years, R/o. D.No. Aged about 24 years, R/o. Kurnool District. Aged about 21 years, R/o. D.No. 19/295, Fareed Sab Street, Adoni, Kurnool District. ...Revision Petitioners (Petitioners/Plaintiffs) AND 1. M.Srinivasulu, S/o.M.Jamanna, Aged about broker, R/o. H.No.17/234, C.R.Nagar, Adoni, Kurnool District. 2. M.Zareena Begum, W/o. Mulla Murtaza 64 years. Real estate Aged about 44 years, House- Kurnool District. Aged about 57 years, R/o. Kurnool District, years, R/o. H.No.25/560, wife, R/o. H.No.21-515/1-2, Ambedkar Nagar, Adoni 3. M.Basavaraju, S/o. M.Ayyanna, near Gandhi Nagar, H.No. 17/830, Alur Road, Adoni 4. M.Irfan, S/o. M.Md. Ilyas, Aged about 30 Havannapet, Adoni, Kurnool District. ...Respondents (Respondents/Defendants) lAiJOi1OF_2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court direct the Hon'ble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Adoni to dispose of I.A.No.268/2025 in O.S.No.325/2025 and follow may be pleased to the law down by this Hon'ble Court in a case reported in “2015 (3) ALT 476”. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.Syam Sundar Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following order: Reddy, Advocate APHC010444542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the twenty eighth day of August two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2142 of 2025 Between: S.M.Gulamali and others ...Petitioners and M.Srinivasulu and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: 1.A. Syam Sundar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: 1. The Court made the following: 2 r\ C.R.P.No.2142 of 2025 O R PER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.08.2025 in I.A.No.268 of 2025 in O.S.No.325 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Adoni, Kurnool District. Heard Sri M.Chiranjeevi Babu, learned counsel representing the counsel for the petitioners through V.C. 2. The revision petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction and also l.A.No.268 of 2025 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C. to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents / defendants, their men etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of petition / plaint schedule property pending disposal of the suit. On 19.08.2025, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court directed issue of urgent notice to the respondents on payment of process adjourning the case to 23.09.2025. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition has been filed contending that the impugned order is contrary to law, evidence and probabilities of the case and the trial Court ought to have considered the order of this Court in the case of Smt. K.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs G.Nageshwara Reddy and others^ and that taking advantage of the longer period of adjournment, the respondents are making serious attempts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in the property. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the purpose of filing the suit would be defeated if the matter is adjourned to a long date as it enables the respondents to dispossess the revision petitioners by taking advantage of no restraint order against them. He referred to the above cited decision and requested to pass similar order. 4. •20J5(3)ALT476 3 C.R.P.No.2142 of 2025 In the case of Smt. K.Vijaya Lakshmi (supra), under similar circumstances, by considering the scope of Order XXXIX, Rule 1 C.P.C., it was held as follows: Jtvcv 5. “The above referred provision enables the Court to grant temporary injunction even without issuing notice to the respondents. The above provision has been made with an intention to preserve the property as it is. When any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors or where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause or injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may grant a temporary injunction. Of course, the plaintiff has to establish prima facie case. It becomes the duty of the Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not. The Courts should go through the averments made by the party in the supporting affidavit and also the pleadings and documents filed in support of the case of the plaintiff. When a prima facie case is made out, the Courts must grant temporary injunction and see that the plaintiff is not dispossessed in the meanwhile. The urgency of passing of orders under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC should be kept in mind. Even where the Court is not inclined to grant temporary injunction or decides to issue urgent notice in that case also the Court should issue urgent notice and post the matter to a shortest date. The Court should examine what is the reasonable time required to serve the notice upon the respondents. Where the plaintiff undertakes to serve the notice within two or three days, the matter need not be adjourned to a longer date. It can be posted within four days or a week. When there is urgency in the matter the attitude of the Courts in posting the matter to a longer date, in fact defeat the purpose of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that there is no need to issue notice to the respondents in this revision. The revision 4 rv, C.R.P.No.2142 of 2025 can be disposed of at the admission stage giving following directions % to the lower Court. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge is directed to issue notice to the respondents or their counsel and advance the matter to any date within a period of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a of this order and hear the matter within a period of seven (7) copy days thereafter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, in the meanwhile, both the parties are directed to main status quo obtaining as on today with regard to possession. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is disposed of. However, in the circumstances, no costs.” Keeping in view the above preposition, which squarely applies to the present case as well, the revision petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to advance the matter from 23.09.2025 to a date one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and serve notice of the advancement of the hearing date on the respondents by urgent notice, and on their counsel, if any is engaged, in which case there shall be no need to serve notice separately on the respondent(s) represented by counsel. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 6. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEcrndi^ officer To, 1. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Adoni, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies GPC sree -.S»« HIGH COURT DATED: 28/08/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 2142 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS