1 APHC010530952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2598/2025 Between: 1. NIMMAGADDA LAKSHMI,, W/O. SUBRAHMANYAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PROPERTIES, R/O. D.NO. 2-19, CHODAVARAM, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VARRE KUMARA SWAMY, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-18, CHODAVARAM, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. VARRE GANESH KUMAR, S/O. VARRE KUMARA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-18, CHODAVARAM, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to revise the order of the Learned Principle Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vijayawada in E.P. No.289/2024 in LA. No. 1695/2022 in O.S. No.500/2022 dt.26.09.2025 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 2 pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of order dated 26.09.2025 passed in E.P.No.289/2024 in LA.No. 1659/2022 in O.S.No.500/2022 dt.26.09.2025 on the file of Principle Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vijayawada IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 pleased to stay operation of the order passed in E.P. No.289/2024 in I.A.No. 1695/2022 in O.S.No.500/2022 dt.26.09.2025 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vijayawada pending disposal of the CRP IA NO: 3 OF 2025 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 extend the interim order dt. 03.10.2025 in LA. No.2/2025 in C.R.P.No. 2598/2025 untill further orders and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVI KUMAR C Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C SUBODH 3 The Court made the following: ORDER:- This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.09.2025 passed in E.P.No.289 of 2024 in I.A.No.1659 of 2022 in O.S.No.500 of 2022 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, whereby the Executing Court ordered for execution of the temporary mandatory injunction that was granted in I.A.No.1659 of 2022. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The revision petitioner is the defendant / judgment-debtor. The plaintiffs have filed the suit initially for permanent injunction and during pendency of the suit, on the ground that the defendant has made certain constructions on the property in question, they have filed amendment application to include the prayer of mandatory injunction. Thereafter, they have filed an interlocutory application for grant of temporary mandatory injunction to remove the said alleged illegal constructions on the property. The said petition was allowed granting temporary mandatory injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant has preferred CMA No.9 of 2004 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court dismissed the stay petition in I.A.No.53 of 2024 as per orders dated 13.08.2025, but the CMA is still pending before the said Court. As the stay petition was dismissed, the Executing Court ordered for execution of the said temporary injunction order by the impugned order. 4. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court by way of filing this revision petition. According to him, when the main relief claimed in the suit is for mandatory injunction, that a temporary mandatory injunction cannot be granted. It is not a valid ground to challenge the validity of the order passed in the execution petition. It is well settled principle of law that 4 the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree or the order. If at all, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the temporary mandatory injunction cannot be granted, when the main suit itself is filed for mandatory injunction, he has to pursue the same before the appellate Court, where the CMA was filed challenging the said order of granting temporary mandatory injunction. Therefore, in this revision, where the order of the Executing Court is challenged, this Court cannot interfere with the said order of the Executing Court on the said ground raised by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere and entertain this revision. 5. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise his contention as contended supra, before the appellate Court in the CMA that is pending disposal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 21.11.2025 ARR 5 167 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2598/2025 Date : 21.11.2025 ARR