APHC010907872017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1248/2017 Between: 1. UNDAVALLI PRABHAVATHI,, W/O. SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED 86 YEARS, D.NO.1-180, DHUMANTUNIGUDEM, DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. UNDAVALLI VEERA RAGHAVULU, S/O. LATE SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, MALE, AGED 55 YEARS, CULTIVATION, D.NO.1-04, LAKKAVIIRAM, JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. UNDAVALLI PANDURANGA RAO, S/O. LATE SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, MALE, AGED 43 YEARS, CULTIVATION, D.NO.1-180, DHUMANTUNIGUDEM, DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. NAYUDU ANANTHA LAKSHMI, W/O. ADINARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.2-35, MADDURU, KOVVUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BAR K OF INDIA, DEVERAPALLI BRANCH, DEVERAPALLI, DEVERAPALLI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP 2227 OF 2017 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 the operation of the order dt: 04.10.2017 in I.A.No. 864/2017 in OS.No. 59/2017 on the file of the learned IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S SRI RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO DAVULURI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:1248/2017 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is preferred aggrieved by order dated 04.10.2017 passed in I.A. No.864 of 2017 in O.S. No.59/2017, on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Kovvuru, West Godavari District. 2. (a) Appeal is instituted by 1st defendant – mother. Suit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are sons of 1st appellant/defendant. The 2nd defendant is daughter of 1st defendant and sister of plaintiffs. 3rd defendant is bank, where certain amounts are lying, which were deposited on account of acquiring part of suit schedule property. Plaintiffs claiming to be absolute owners of Plaint A and Plaint B schedule properties, which according to them absolutely vested with them in pursuance to the WILL executed by their father, reserving limited right of enjoyment on 1st defendant, being mother sought for declaration of title and further to declare the Registered Settlement Deed dated 08.09.2015 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant to be collusive, therefore, sham and nominal to the extent of item 3 of Plaint A and Plaint B schedule properties. They also sought for 2 CGR, J CMA. No.1248 of 2017 injunction to restrain the 3rd respondent from disbursing the amounts lying on account of compensation that has been deposited in view of acquisition of part of item 3 of plaint A and plaint B schedule properties. Along with suit, they also filed I.A. No.864 of 2017 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining respondents from disbursing compensation amounts lying in the bank account pending disposal of the suit. The application was contested by appellant/ 1st defendant. (b) After considering the plea raised by respective parties, trial court allowed the application and granted temporary injunction restraining 3rd respondent bank in releasing the amounts which are lying in the credit to an extent of ₹17,50,132/- pending the suit. (c) Assailing the same, present appeal is filed. 3. Heard Ms.A.V.Sai Praneetha, learned counsel, representing Sri S.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel, appears on behalf of appellant. None appears for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that since the order of inunction has been passed on 04.10.2017 and that the same is in force even today, rather than deciding the appeal on merits, considering the fact that suit is of the year 2017, the trial be 3 CGR, J CMA. No.1248 of 2017 expedited, which would be beneficial to both appellant as well as contesting respondents/plaintiffs. 5. Perusal of record goes to show that suit was instituted in the year 2017 and the appellant herein was aged 86 years when this appeal came to be instituted. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant and upon considering the age of the 1st defendant, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the appeal by directing the trial court to expedite the suit and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, this civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 14.08.2025 SS