IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 1 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 273 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Docket Order dt.06-01-2025 in I.A.No.19 of 2025 in O.S.No.02 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Prodattur. Between: Narala Chinna Subba Reddy, S/o.Late Narala Subba Reddy, Aged about 65 years. Cultivation, Previously R/o.D.No.1-19, Bollavaram Village, at present R/o.D.No.1/70, Bollavaram Village, Proddatur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1. Talari Matthesu Alias Matthesh, S/o.Matthaiah, Aged about 62 years. Pensioner, R/o.D.No.27/199, Vasanthapeta, Proddatur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Talari Mary alias Ankamma, W/o. Vinod, D/o. Talari Matthesu, Aged about 35 years. House maker, R/o. Beside Hosanna Mandir (Church D.No.27/203), Vasanthapeta, Proddatur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 3. Talari Priyanka alias B. Priyanka, W/o.Naveen, D/o. Talari Matthesu Aged about 33 years. Volunteer in Ward Sachivalayam, R/o. D. No.27/199, Upstairs, Vasanthapeta, ProddaturTown and MandaL, YSR District ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendant NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w 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 temporary injunction in my favor and against the Respondent No.3 herein, restraining her, her agents, representatives, assignees etc. from in any way alienating the Petition Schedule property to third parties. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. Nitesh Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: 1 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA ri\/ii RFVISION petition NO: 273/2025 APHC010032242025 IN THE [3329] Sf THE HONOURABLE SRI Between; Narala Chinna Subba Reddy ...PETITIONER AND Talari Matthesu Alias Matthesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VN1TESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. Court made the following; ORDEJ^ The is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2 of 2025, a suit filed for The petitioner herein is the cancellation of a registered relinquishment 1. deed dated 11.06.2024, ‘ in favor of respondent No. 3, defendants/respondent Nos. 1 and executed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in allegedly other than the legal heir of the 2. The petitioner filed an application under schedule property. The property in question has been who is none Order 38, Rules 5 and 6, seeking attachment of the mortgaged by the petitioner wife of the 1 and belongs to the 3rd nd and the 2 of the mother and respondent/defendant 2 attachment of the said to create third-party respondents/defendants. The petitioner sought that the defendants are trying subject property to the detriment of the petitioner. property, contending interests in the interim order dated hearing both parties, the court below issued an 06.05.2024, which states as follows; 2. After nof/ce to the a show cause respondents to furnish third-party secur/fy or fo deposit the suit amount on or before ’ which the petition scheduie property shail be 'Hence, issue faiiing attached. submits that, despite the court's provide third-party security or deposit the have failed to comply the order the subject property stands attached by 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner order directing the respondents to suit amount by 18.06.2024, the respondents dated 06.05.2024. Consequently of the order dated 06.05.2024. Despite the subsistence of the of the suit, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 virtue attachment order during the pendency executed a relinquishment deed dated 11.06.2024 in 3, thereby trying to defeat the petitioners attachment of the court below dated 06.05.2024. in favor of respondent No. interests and violated the order of . No. 19 of 2025 under Order 39, 151 of the CPC, seeking a temporary in the defendants from alienating or creating any third-party Subsequently, the petitioner filed l.A Rules 1 and 2, read with Section injunction to restrain . interest in respect of the subject property . However, despite the urgency of the matter. the court below, instead of granting an order of injunction, but posted V 3 ^ the matter for counter and enquiry on 08.05.2025, thereby delay in granting relief to the petitioner. This delay is contrary to the petitioner's interests, as there exists a real possibility that the defendants may create third-party interests against the subject property. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material on record, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner's claim for a temporary injunction. restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third-party interests in the subject property, is reasonable and ought to be accepted. In light of the existing attachment order dated 06.05.2024, the relief sought by the petitioner Accordingly, the court below is should be granted without any hesitation, specifically directed to dispose of I.A. No. 19 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, and in view of the facts as stated above, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of this order. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ S ON OFFICER 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Prodattur, YSR Kadapa District 2. OneCCto Sri. V Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies To Stu sree / HIGH COURT DATED;28/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.273 of 2025 AN0/^ 0 3 AfU ?0?5 Current Section * ■ac disposing the c.r.p WITHOUT COSTS