APHC010557812024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 764 OF 2024 Between: 1. Pattaboyina Maheswara Rao, S/o.Late Nagaiah, Hindu, aged about 60 years, R/o.D.No.30-20-1/2, Koti Lingamvari Street, Seetharamapuram, Vijayawada-520002. 2. Pattaboyina Pavan Kumar, S/o.Pattaboyina Maheswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 36 years, R/o.D.No.30-20-1/2, Koti Lingamvari Street, Seetharamapuram, Vijayawada-520002. ...Appellants AND 1. The State, Rep by its District Collector, NTR District, Vijayawada. 2. Avula Surya Narayana Reddy, S/o.Late Rosi Reddy, Hindu, aged about 79 years. Retired Government Employee, Maruthi Co-operative Colony, Vijayawada-520008. R/0.D.N0.59A-8/8-5B, 3. The Panchayath Secretary, Ramavarappadu Village Panchayat, NTR District. r ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants 1 to 3 Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, against the Order and Decree, dated 28-11-2024 passed in I.A.No.569 of 2024 in A.S.No.87 of 2024, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing the said application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate representing Sri V.R.Reddy KJovvuri, Advocate for Appellants, and of Respondent No.2-Sri Avula Suryanarayana Reddy (Party in Person) and Sri Yarraguntla Koteswara Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3, and none appeared for Respondent No.1. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE: That the Appeal be and the same hereby is dismissed; That the Lower Appellate Court, be and hereby is directed to dispose of the Appeal Suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; 1. 2. and That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal 3. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR V //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 1. 2. Two CD Copies VNA HIGH COURT DATED:11/09/2025 DECREE i 25SFP 2025 ^ Current Section m CMA NO. 764 OF 2024 DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS APHC010557812024 QMS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 764 OF 2024 Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, against the Order and Decree, dated 28-11-2024 passed in I.A.No.569 of 2024 in A.S.No.87 of 2024, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing the said application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Between; 1. Pattaboyina Maheswara Rao, S/o.Late Nagaiah, Hindu, aged about 60 years, R/o.D.No.30-20-1/2, Koti Lingamvari Street, Seetharamapuram, Vijayawada-520002. 2. Pattaboyina Pavan Kumar, S/o.Pattaboyina Maheswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 36 years, R/o.D.No.30-20-1/2, Koti Lingamvari Street, Seetharamapuram, Vijayawada-520002. ...Appellants AND 1. The State, Rep by its District Collector, NTR District, Vijayawada. 2. Avula Surya Narayana Reddy, S/o.Late Rosi Reddy, Hindu, aged about 79 years. Retired Government Employee, Maruthi Co-operative Colony, Vijayawada-520008. R/o.D.N0.59A-8/8-5B, ^ • ^ 3. The Panchayath Secretary, Ramavarappadu Village Panchayat, NTR District. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants 1 to 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim Injunction restraining the respondents and their men, agents and servants not to remove the sawmill from the plaint schedule property and not to obstruct the timber business pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for Appellants: Sri T.Ravi Kumar, representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for Respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Avula Suryanarayana Reddy (Party in Person) Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri Yarraguntia Koteswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayat The Court made the following: APHC010557812024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMB [3506] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 764/2024 Between: 1 PATTABOYINA MAHESWARA RAO,, S/0 LATE NAGAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O D.NO.30-20-1/2, KOTI LINGAMVARI STREET, SEETHARAMAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA- 520002. S/O PATTABOYINA 2. PATTABOYINA PAVAN KUMAR MAHESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O LINGAMVARI • STREET, KOTI D.NO.30-20-1/2, SEETHARAMAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-520002. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.THE STATE, REP BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA/ 2.AVULA SUIYA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O LATE ROSI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS. RETIRED GOVERNMENT 59A-8/8-5B, MARUTHI CO EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO. OPERATIVE COLONY, VIJAYAWADA-520008 3.THE PANCHAYATH SECRETAIY, RAMAVARAPPADU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT NTR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC is filed against the Orders dated 28.11.2024 in I.A.No. 569 of 2024 in A.S.No. 87 of 2024, passed by the Honble VII Addl. District Judge, at Vijayawada, and prays to , grant ad-interim Injunction against the respondents from demolishing 2 CGR, J. CMANo.764 of 2024 the structures in the subject property till the disposal of the Appeal and pass such lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to grant interim Injunction restraining the respondents and their men, agents and servants not to remove the sawmill from the plaint schedule property and not to obstruct the timber business pending disposal of the above appeal and pass such Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.VR REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1. PARTY IN PERSON 2.Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats 3. The Court made the following: CGR, J. CMANo.764of 2024 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.764 of 2024 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC assailing order, dated 28.11.2024, passed in I.A.No.569 of 2024 in A.S. No.87 of 2024 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, whereby the application filed under Order 39 Rulesi and 2 CPC, seeking ad-interim injunction, came to be rejected. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they 2. were arrayed in the Suit before the trial Court. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. Appellants are plaintiffs in O.S.No.543 of 2017 instituted on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, for permanent injunction restraining defendants from removing the Saw Mill from plaint schedule property and further not to obstruct the timber business run by 2^^ plaintiff. After contest, the said Suit came to be dismissed, by judgment and decree, dated 11.03.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs preferred appeal in A.S.No.87 of 204 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Pending appeal, I.A.No.569 of 2024 came to be preferred under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking temporary injunction against respondents 1 to 3 CGR, J CMA No.764 of 2024 A from removing the Saw Mill from petition schedule property and further not to obstruct the timber business, pending disposal of the Appeal. Respondents have filed counter contesting the said application and ultimately, by impugned order prayer made therein came to be rejected. Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri T.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Avula Suryanarayana Reddy, 2"*^ respondent - party in person, and Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for 3'"^ respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to persuade this Court on the merits of the matter by contending that the lower appellate Court committed error in not granting the relief as claimed for and that it has not considered the plea raised in proper perspective to protect the interest of the appellants. He further contended that lower appellate Court having granted status quo, by order, dated 06.08.2024, ought not to have dismissed the application and by virtue of the dismissal order, now, appellants are exposed to the threat of their structures on schedule property being demolished. 6. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 3 and 2'^^ respondent party in person tried to support the impugned 5 CGR, J. CMA No.764 of 2024 order, contending that, since the very Suit itself has been dismissed and that there was no temporary injunction granted pending trial, the lower appellate Court has rightly rejected the application and the findings in the impugned order do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Perused the record and considered the respective submissions of both the parties. 8. The contention of appellants that responderits should not interfere with the timber business and also they should not to demolish constructions over plaint schedule property, came to be rejected for the reason that there were no valid permissions granted by competent authority for undertaking such business and further that even pending Suit, as it is discernible from record that there was status quo order for a brief period in the Suit and also pending disposal of I.A. No.569 of 2024 before the lower appellate Court, therefore, the rejection of prayer made in I.A. is justified. The finding recorded by the lower appellate Court that the Government officials cannot be injuncted from performing their official duties for violation of statutory Rules, and also ultimately if the appellants succeed, they can always be compensated by way of damages, also does not suffer from any infirmity nor can it be said to be perverse. CGR, J. CMANo.764 of 2024 In order to grant relief of ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, one has to establish prima facie case, balance of 9. convenience should lie in his/her favour and also demonstrate irreparable loss or injury if injunction is not granted. As the appellants have lost the Suit, clearly they could not establish prima facie case. Coming to the aspect of balance of convenience and irreparable loss, since there was no injunction for substantial period, except for a 10. brief period, and that too of only a status quo either before the trial Court or lower appellate Court, the appellants have not shown there exists balance of convenience in their favour. As rightly held by the lower appellate Court that in case appellants succeed, they can always be compensated by way of damages, even the aspect of irreparable loss and injury is also not made out. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the findings and conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate Court in rejecting the application. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that as Appeal Suit before the lower appellate Court is of the year 2024, the same may be directed to be disposed of expeditiously, considering the 12. nature of issues raised. 7 CGR, J. CMA No. 764 of 2024 13. Learned lower appellate Court, therefore, is directed to dispose of the Appeal Suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any in this case, shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. (With records) 2. Sri Avula Surya Narayana Reddy, S/o.Late Rosi Reddy, Retired Government - Employee, R/o.D.No.59A-8/8-5B, Maruthi Co-operative Colony, Vijayawada-520008. (Party in Person) [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Yarraguntia Koteswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Two CD Copies BSV vna HIGH COURT DATED:11/09/2025 JUDGMENT AND DECREE CMA NO. 764 OF 2024 25SF^2fl» ™ &^ . Current secnon DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS