APHC010658102022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2567/2022 Between: 1. UPPUGUNDURI KOTAIAH, S/ O.YELLAMANDA, AGE.60 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.UPPUGUNDURU VILLAGE, N.G.PADU MANDAL. PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. TAVANAM MATTAIAH, S/o.Ruben, Age. year, s-, Agricultural Labour, R/o.D.No.8-44, Uppugunduru Village, N.G.Padu Mandal. Prakasam District.. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Revision is filed against the Order dated. 16.09.2022 passed in C.M.A.No.5 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge At Chirala, setting aside the Order dt.28.03.2016 passed in I.A.No.2293 of 2012 in O.S.No.198 of 2012 on the file of the Principle Junior Civil Judge at Chirala, IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 suspend the Order dt.16.09.2022 passed in C.M.A.No.5 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court At Chirala pending disposal of the CRP and pass 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 grant Stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.198 of 2012 on the file of the Principle Junior Civil Judge court at Chirala pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI The Court made the following 3 ORDER: Defendant in the suit filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 16.09.2022 in CMA No.5 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Chirala, setting aside the order dated 28.03.2016 in I.A.No.2293 of 2012 in O.S.No.198 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Chirala. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/ plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.198 of 2012 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment over an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.171/1A of pedaganjam panchayat of Prakasam District (hereinafter referred to „suit schedule property‟). The plaintiff contends that he has purchased the suit schedule property from one Ganjam Purnachandra Rao, S/o Rahurama Rao, under a registered sale Deed dated 03.10.2011. In the said suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.2293 of 2012 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction which was dismissed on 28.03.2016. 3. Challenging the order dated 28.03.2016 in I.A.No.2293 of 2012, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred CMA No.5 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Chirala. The said CMA was allowed by order dated 16.09.2022 reversing the order dated 28.03.2016 in I.A.No.2293 of 2012. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2022, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant in the suit. 4. Heard. 4 5. The petitioner/defendant contends that though the defendant has purchased an extent of Ac.1-12 cents in Sy.No.171/1 and 171/B of Peddagnjam Village under registered sale Deed dated 15.05.1999 from one Ganjam Bhanu Murthy, S/o Raghurama Rao on 15.05.1995 and the said Sale Deed is marked as Ex.B.1. It is also the case of the petitioner/defendant herein that the trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff only based upon Ex.A-1 which was executed on 03.10.2011 without therebeing any other document as well as ignoring the possession of the petitioner/ defendant over the schedule property. 6. When the present CRP came up for admission on 28.02.2023, this Court passed the following order: “….There shall be an order of status quo to be maintained by both the parties pending disposal of this Revision” 7. On a perusal of the documents as well as the order dated 16.09.2022 in CMA No.5 of 2016 as well as order dated 28.03.2016 in I.A.No.2293 of 2012, it can be understood that both the petitioner as well as respondent purchased the suit schedule property from the sons of Raghurama Rao, who was the absolute owner of the property of an extent of Ac.9-44 cents in Sy.No.171/1A, 171/1C of Peddaganjam Village, out of which during the course of family arrangement after the death of said Raghurama Rao, an extent of Ac.1-12 cents fell to the share of Bhanu Murthy, who in turn sold the said property in favour of the petitioner/defendant herein. As the petitioner as well as the respondent are claiming the same extent of land in Sy.No.1771/1A, the fact 5 can be settled only by way of demarcating the boundaries of both the schedules as per their sale deeds dated 15.05.1999 and 03.10.2011 i.e. Exs.B1 and A1 respectively. 8. In view thereof, this Court refrains from delving into the merits of the case at this stage, as the facts are to be determined during the course of the trial. Hence, this Court feels it appropriate to permit both the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to their schedule properties which are in their possession and enjoyment pending trial before the trial Court. However, both the parties are at liberty to file application before the trial Court seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for demarcating the boundaries of their schedule properties. 8. As the suit pertains to the year 2012, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of this order. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 16.09.2022 in CMA No.5 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Chirala. Both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo till disposal of suit in O.S.No.198 of 2012. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 29.08.2025 KA 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2567/2022 Date: 29.08.2025 KA 7