APHC010381952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 553/2025 Between: 1. YERRI SIVA PRATHAPA REDDY, S/O CHINNA SUBBA REDDY, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O HNO 4/5, MUDDANUR TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. YERRI SIVA PRASHANTA REDDY, S/O SIVA PRATHAPA REDDY, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O HNO 4/5, MUDDANUR TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. BHEEMACHERLA BHASKAR REDDY, S/O NAGALINGA REDDY, AGED 45 YEARS OCC CULTIVATION, R/O HNO 6/4, KOSINENIPALLI VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. BHEEMACHERLA RAVINIDARANATHA REDDY, S/O BHASKAR REDDY, AGED 19 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O HNO 6/4, KOSINENIPALLI VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Appeal Under Section_____against orderspleased to set aside the Order dated 20.06.2025 passed in lA No 409 of 2025 in AS No 51 of 2025 on the file of the Learned II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and allow the Appeal, by dismissing the lA No 409 of 2025 in AS No 51 of 2025 on the file of the Learned II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and to pass 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 pleased to grant suspension of injunction order dated 16.06.2025 passed in lA No: 409 of 2025 in AS No: 51 of 2025 on the file of the Learned II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. KODATI RAMYA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V NITESH 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 553/2025 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short <the CPC=), assailing the order dated 16.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.409 of 2025 in A.S.No.51 of 2025 on the file the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur. 2. The appellants herein are defendants in the suit. The respondents herein initially preferred O.S.No.4 of 2019 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. The said suit came to be contested and eventually by judgment and decree dated 26.03.2025, the suit came to be dismissed. Assailing the same, they preferred A.S.No.51 of 2025. Pending the appeal, I.A.No.409 of 2025 was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents therein for interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the appeal. Later, the Lower Appellate Court by impugned order dated 16.06.2025 has granted ad-interim injunction accordingly. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed. 4 3. This Court while issuing notice to respondents has passed interim order dated 06.08.2025 in I.A.No.2025 suspending the impugned order under challenge and the said order has been extended later. 4. Heard Sri Solomon Raju, learned counsel representing Ms. Kodati Ramya Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that since the very suit itself has been dismissed and there was no injunction in favour of plaintiff/respondents pending disposal of suit, on the face of findings rendered in the judgment and decree, the Lower Appellate Court ought not to have granted ad-interim ex parte injunction. He further contended that specific findings have been rendered in the suit that the respondents have failed to establish that they were in possession of suit schedule property for granting relief as claimed in the suit, rather the Lower Appellate Court has rendered finding that in view of competing title claim between the parties, unless prayer for declaration of title is made, the issue cannot be gone into and decided. 5 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents tried to support the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court by contending that since the appeal being continuing of proceedings to the suit and that they have made out a case for grant of ad-interim injunction, rightly the said application has been considered. He further contended that mere findings rendered by Trial Court would not disentitle for reappreciation in the hands of the Lower Appellate Court and since the appeal is pending and the suit is for grant of permanent injunction, non-grant of temporary injunction would defeat the rights of the respondents and the very purpose of initiating appeal. He further contended that under the guise of interim suspension orders passed by this Court, the appellants/defendants are trying to enter into the subject property and erect structures. 7. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that in I.A.No.409 of 2025, the appellants herein have already filed counter affidavit opposing the prayer. Since the order dated 16.06.2025 was passed ex parte without notice to the appellants, who are respondents in the said IA and inasmuch as counter has been filed on merits, learned counsel 6 for the appellants submits that the matter be relegated back to the Lower Appellate Court for re-consideration on merits. 8. On perusal of impugned order goes to show that it has been passed without hearing the respondents in the said I.A. However, the Lower Appellate Court instead of confining interim order for a specific period has granted injunction pending disposal of appeal. This approach of Lower Appellate Court is unjustified. As counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents therein contesting the grant of injunction, this Court is inclined to relegate the matter for fresh determination. Since the contention has been raised that under the guise of interim orders there is an effort made to take possession on either side, both parties are directed to maintain status-quo meantime. 9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 16.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.409 of 2025 in A.S.No.51 of 2025 on the file the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Lower Appellate Court for reconsideration. The Lower Appellate Court shall consider I.A.No.409 of 2025 in A.S.No.51 of 2025 and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties, 7 within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the parties shall maintain status-quo as observed above. 10. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 15.10.2025 ANS 8 282 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 553/2025 Date: 15.10.2025 ANS