APHC010451742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 965 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-11 [3483] Korrapati Venkata Ratnam and another ...Appellants Vs. Korrapati Penchalaiah and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellants : Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Advocate for respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Home, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 22nd September 2025 P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were respondent Nos.7 and 10 in the writ petition bearing No.13554 of 2025. 2. The case of the petitioners before the learned single Judge was that they were in possession of Ac.1-96 cents and Ac.1-97 cents respectively falling in Sy.No.27 situated at Perumallapadu Revenue Village, Chejarla Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District and that the petitioners were being harassed to vacate the property in question by official respondent Nos.4 to 6. 3. Respondent No.4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police and respondent No.5 is the Station House Officer of Chejarla Police Station, Chejarla, S.P.S.R. 2 Nellore District. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the learned single Judge directed the official respondent Nos.4 to 6 not to harass or insist that the petitioners vacate the property in question. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants state that the petition was allowed without even issuing notice to the appellants and even when the appellants were in possession of the property in question. It is stated that based upon the order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellants apprehend that they will be evicted from the property in question. 5. We are now informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a civil suit has since been filed by the petitioners which is pending now in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, S.P.S.R. Nellore District vide O.S.No.9 of 2023. It is also fairly admitted that as on date, no interim injunction has been granted by the Court below. 6. Be that as it may, since a civil suit has already been filed and is pending between the parties before a civil Court, we feel that the order impugned, which issues a direction assuming the petitioners to be in possession of the property, is unsustainable as it is a question of fact which requires to be determined by the civil Court. 7. Be that as it may, we set aside the judgment and order impugned leaving the parties free to agitate the matter before the civil Court. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. 3 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J AMD 4 115 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 965 of 2025 Dt:22.09.2025 AMD