/ k. APHC010026012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL NO: 45 OF 2024 Appeal Under Section43 Rule 1(r) of CPC against orders pleased to set aside the order and decree dated 05/12/2023 in I.A.No.403/2023 in AS No. 233/2023 (lA.No. 19/2023 in AS No. 19/2023 on the file of X ADJ, TPT) on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi. Between: Sk Nazeer Ahmad, S/o. Abdul Kareem, Aged about 61 years. Cultivation R/o. 7/498, Maratipalem, P V Road, Srikalahasthi Town, Tirupati District. ..Appellant Petitioner/Appellant/1®* Plaintiff AND 1. Sk Mohammad Ali, S/o. Abdul Kareem, Aged about 66 years. Employee at Zidah, C/o. Rafiq Ahmad, 7/799, Janullah Street, Srikalahasthi Town, Tirupati District. 2. The Sub Registrar, Thottambedu, Kamsala Street, Bahadurpeta, Srikalahasthi Town, Tirupati District. 3. Sk Khaleel, S/o. Abdul Kareem, Cultivation, R/o. 7/498, Maratipalem V P Road, Srikalahasthi Town, Tirupati District. Def No. 1 Def No.2 Plaintiff No.2 ...Respondents lA NO: 2 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in AS.No.233/2023 (AS.No. 19/2023 X ADJ TPT) on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi pending disposal of the above CMA. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. T. JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: M/S. M. HEMALATHA The Court made the following Judgment: APHC010026012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.45 of 2024 Between: 1.SK NAZEER AHMAD, S/0. ABDUL KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, CULTIVATION R/0. 7/498, MARATIPALEM, P V ROAD, SRIKALAHASTHI TOWN, TIRUPATI DIST. ...APPELLANT AND 1.SK MOHAMMAD ALI, S/O. ABDUL KA.REEM, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. EMPLOYEE AT ZIDAH, C/0. RAFIQ AHMAD, 7/799, JANULLAH STREET, SRIKALAHASTHI TOWN, TIRUPATI DIST. 2.THE SUB REGISTRAR, , THOTTAMBEDU, STREET, BAHADURPETA, TIRUPATI DIST. KAMSALA SRIKALAHASTHI TOWN, 3.SK KHALEEL, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, CULTIVATION, R/0. 7/498, MARATIPALEM, V P ROAD, SRIKALAHASTHI TOWN, TIRUPATI DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1.T JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP) 2.M HEMALATHA The Court made the following: 2 CGR,J CMA.No.45 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.45 of 2024 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for appellant, Smt. M. Hema Latha, learned counsel for 1®^ respondent, and learned Government Pleader for Arbitration for 2^^ respondent. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order 2. and decree dated 05.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.403 of 2023 in A.S.No.233 of 2023 on the file of learned XII Additional District Judge, Chittoor District, at Srikalahasti. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit, O.S.No.79 of 2012 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti. The appellant, along with his younger brother, 3'^'^ respondent herein, filed the said suit for partition of suit schedule property, against their eldest brother i.e., 1®* respondent herein. The suit schedule property 3. consists of an extent of Ac.6.67 cents along with mango garden. The suit was resisted by 1®* respondent, contending that the suit schedule property was purchased with his self-acquired funds and, therefore, it cannot be considered as joint family property liable for partition. The case of appellant/1®' plaintiff was that though the property stands in the name of 1®‘ respondent, the same was purchased from the funds of joint family and, therefore, it is 3 CGRJ CMA. No. 45 of2024 amenable for partition. The trial Court after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, dismissed the suit, by judgment and decree dated 27.01.2023. Pending the suit, the appellant had the benefit of interim injunction restraining the contesting defendant/1 respondent herein from alienating the subject property. Assailing the dismissal of the suit, the appellant preferred A.S.No.233 of 2023 along with I.A.No.403 of 2023, which application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., seeking interim injunction restraining the 1"‘ respondent from alienating the subject property, pending disposal of the appeal. Initially, pending consideration of the said interlocutory application, the appellate Court granted temporary injunction. However, by impugned order dated 05.12.2023, the appellate Court ultimately dismissed the said application. Assailing the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. was an 4. Sri T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for appellant, tried to take this Court through the pleadings and findings recorded by both trial Court as well as appellate Court to contend that the impugned order suffers from perversity. Besides, he also contended that both the trial Court and appellate Court had granted interim injunction pending the suit and until the disposal of I.A.No.403 of 2023 and that the appellate Court, without properly considering the existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and possibility of 4 CGRJ CMA.No.45 of 2024 irreparable loss, erroneously dismissed the said application. He further contended that even in the present civil miscellaneous appeal, this Court has passed interim order dated 18.03.2024, directing respondent not to alienate the suit schedule property, and the same has been continued till 25.02.2025. Since an interim injunction had been in operation throughout in favour of the appellant, it is contended that there is all the more justification to continue the same pending disposal of the appeal before the first appellate Court. Smt. M. Hema Latha, learned counsel for 1®* respondent, on 5. the other hand, tried to support the impugned order by contending that the appellate Court, after evaluating the pleadings and material available before it, and more particularly, the evidence of mother of plaintiffs, who testified regarding the transaction, has come to right conclusion that the application does not deserve any consideration and accordingly, rejected the same, which cannot be interdicted in any manner. This Court has considered the submissions made on either 6. side and perused the record. No doubt, the claim of 1®* respondent came to be accepted by 7. the trial Court. Nevertheless, one cannot lose sight of the fact that an interim injunction had been in operation throughout the pendency of the suit and even thereafter in appeal, until the dismissal of 5 CGH,J CMA.No.45 of 2024 .A.No.403 of 2023 on 05.12.2023. Further, this Court has also granted interim injunction on 18.03.2024, which remained in force till 25.02.2025. Though learned counsel on either side tried to address on merits of the matter, having regard to the fact that there had been interim protection in favour of the appellant for substantial period, this Court, rather than embarking on merits of the matter and deciding the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned in the appeal, in the interest of both parties, deems it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by prescribing specific timeline for expeditious disposal of the first appeal itself and meanwhile, the parties to maintain status quo till such disposal. 8. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of, directing the first appellate Court to dispose of A:S.No.233 of 2023 expeditiously, preferably not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and till such disposal, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. Needless to state, the first appellate Court shall decide the appeal on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT ISJRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. T. Janardhan Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Arbitration (AP) High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One CC to M/s. M. Hemalatha, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Two C.D Copies. Ssl sree HIGH COURT DATED:31/07/2025 JUDGMENT CMA NO. 45 OF 2024 ^ ANO, 0 k SEP 2025 p ntSectjou^V o Co DISPOSING OF THE C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS