♦* APHC010042082024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASIJRYA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 46 OF 2024 Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC, againsi the order dated 05.12.2023 passed in LA No. 43/2023 in O.S. No. 02/202- on the file of the VII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada. Between: Ponnam Venkata Rama Mohana Rao, S/o. Peda Rosaiah, Hindu, aged about 57 years. Properties, L.G. Towers, Flat No. 305, Krishna Nagar, 4'^ Lane, Guntur. ...Appellant (Petitioner/Plaintiff) AND Pisipati Annapurna, W/o Srirama Murthy, Hindu, aged about 60 years. House wife. Door No. 15-24-314/5/5-4, RoadNo.5, K.P.H.B. Colony, Near Maharastra Bank, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad. ...Respondent (Respoindent/ Defendant) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of i;jPC , praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim junction orders in favour of the Petitioner/Appellant restraining the Respondent/Defendant, her men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the petitionejr/plaintiff till disposal of the suit in OS No. 02/2023 the file of Hon'ble VII Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada. Counsel for the Appellant on : Sri A.Venkata Durga Rao, representing Sri Y.Kishore Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Harsha Sai Pavan, representing Sri CH.Venkat Raman The Court made the following: <■> APHC010042082024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PF^ADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.46 OF 2024 Between: PONNAM VENKATA RAMA MOHANA RAO, S/o.Peda Flosaiah, Hindu, aged about 57 years, Properties, L.G. Towers, Flat Nc. 305, Krishna Nagar, 4th Lane, Guntur. ...Petitioner AND PISIPATI ANNAPURhJA, W/o.Srirama Murthy, Hindu, aged about 60 years. Housewife, Doer No. 15-24-314/5/5-4, RoadNo.5, K.P.H.B. Colony, Near Maharastra Bank, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.Kishore Kumar Yarra Mr.Ch.Venkat Raman The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (perHon’ble N JS,J) Heard Mr.A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel arguing for the appellant. Also heard Mr.Harsha Sai Pavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2023 in I.A. No.43 of 2023 in O.S. No.2 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, preferred the present appeal. He filed the said suit seeking to declare him as the absolute owner of the 2 CMA_46_2024 plaint schedule prop(jrty and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, her men, agents etc. interfering with the [)eaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property ard other reliefs. Along with the st.jit, he filed I.A. No.43 of 2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking temporary injunction and the sa ne was resisted by the respondent/defendant by filing counter affidavit. from Before the learned Trial Court, no oral evidence was adduced, however with the consent of both the parties, Exs.P.1 to F’.7 were marked on behalf of the app(3llant/plaintiff and Exs.R.1 to R.4 were marked on behalf of the respond(3nt/defendant. The learned Trial Court, considering the submissions, dismissed the said I.A., inter alia opining that the plaintiff failed to establish the three cardinal principles of lew for granting temporary injunction i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss/injury that would be caused if injunction is not granted in his favour. 3. 4. The learned counsel arguing for the appellant sought to impress upon the Court that the learned Trial Court had not iiippreciated the matter in a proper perspective and the findings recorded by it while rejecting injunction are not well-founded, that in the light of the material available on record, t(jmporary injunction ought to have l:)een granted favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside tlie order under challenge and grant temporary injunction by allowing I.A. r«lo.43 of 2023. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent made sutimissions to sustain the impugned order. He also submits that though the appeal was filed long back, no injunction in 5. was 3 CMA_46_2024 granted and in those; circumstances, the learned Trial Court may be directed to dispose of the main suit itself by fixing a timej-li! nit. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the On appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the order under challenge warrants interference, in the facts and circumstances of the case. material on record. A perusal of ttie order under challenge makes ii clear that the learned Trial Court while examining the prayer for temporary injunction sought for by the appellant/plaintiff, had taken infc account the documents exhibited t)y both the parties. While recording its “prima facie” findings, it opined that the appellant/plaintiff failed t(.; establish the requirements for granting temporary injunction pending disposal of the main suit. In view of the same and also taking into consideration that no interim injunction is granted so far in this appeal, instead of delving into the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned District Judge to dispose of the main suit itself as expeditiously as possible, on its own merits, within a period of eight (8) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without being influenced by any of the findings recorded in the order under challenge or the observations, of this Court, if any. The point is, accordingly, answered. 7. 8. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellansious Appeal is disposed of. No ord(5r as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna District, [with records if any ] 2. One CC to Sri Y.kjshore Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Ch Venkat Raman, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati at 5. Two CD Copies MV Cnr MV HIGH COURT DATED: 09/09/2025 JUDGMENT CMA No. 46 OF 2024 ^ 19 SEP 2025 m DISPOSING OF THE C.M.A