APHC010572932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3200/2025 Between: 1. KANCHANA SREEDEVI,, W/O KANCHANA SUDHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 53YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.408, SRI RAJA RAJESWARI RESIDENCY, SASTRI NAGAR, PRODDATUR- 516 360, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER A N D 1. BASIREDDY RAJESWARA REDDY, S/o Late Veera Reddy, Aged about 61 years, Occ Business, R/o. D.No. 10/240/1, Sai Rajeswari Colony, Proddatur- 516 360, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT 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 to set aside the Docket Order dt.06-10- 2025 in I.A.No. 550 of 2025 in O.S. No. 13 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge Court, Kadapa at Proddatur and grant Temporary Injunction in favour of the petitioner herein and pass such 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 may be pleased to grant Temporary Injunction by restraining the respondent herein, his assignees, agents and successors from in any way alienating the petition schedule property to third parties till disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass such SRK, J CRP Nos.3200 of 2025 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: SRK, J CRP Nos.3200 of 2025 3 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material available on record. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner, the present Revision Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. 2. Challenging the docket Order, dated 06.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.550 of 2025 in O.S.No.13 of 2025 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Court’) filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’), the petitioner/plaintiff preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Parties are referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.13 of 2025 against the defendant on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur praying the reliefs of Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 24.04.2020; delivery of possession of schedule properties to the plaintiff and consequential relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, his men etc., from alienating the schedule properties. The schedule property consists of four items situated in Kothapalli Panchayat, Modameedipalli village, SRK, J CRP Nos.3200 of 2025 4 Proddatur Mandal and Town. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application vide I.A.No.550 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with 151 of CPC praying the trial Court to grant temporary injunction in favour of petitioner/plaintiff restraining the respondent/defendant etc., from alienating the schedule property to third parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would contend that on 11.07.2025, the trial Court ordered for issuance of urgent notice to the respondent/defendant and later, the respondent/defendant engaged an Advocate, and the matter was coming for filing counter since then; that the respondent/defendant, on 06.10.2025, though, filed written statement in the suit, did not file counter in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC which indicates that the respondent/defendant is trying to drag on the temporary injunction petition proceedings in order to alienate the schedule property to third parties. Learned counsel further contends that the trial Court, without considering the pleadings of the petitioner/plaintiff, ordered for mere notice to the respondent/defendant and in turn, the respondent/defendant is trying to alienate the schedule property to third parties and if at all, SRK, J CRP Nos.3200 of 2025 5 the respondent/defendant succeeds in his attempt, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 6. A perusal of contents of the plaint goes to show that the plaintiff purchased the schedule property, consisting of four items, from the defendant, under an Agreement of Sale, dated 24.04.2020 for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,49,97,500/-. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, she paid an amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/- out of the above said total sale consideration on 24.04.2020 under the said Agreement of Sale, dated 24.04.2020, and when the respondent/defendant failed to perform his part of contract by executing regular Registered Sale Deed by receiving balance sale consideration, the petitioner/plaintiff approached the trial Court by filing the present suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 7. Indisputably, the suit is of the year 2025, and it is at the threshold stage, and to safeguard her right over the schedule property till the disposal of pending litigation, the petitioner filed application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for ad interim orders, but, it is due to ordering of urgent notice to the respondent/defendant, the petitioner/plaintiff approached this Court through this Revision Petition, anticipating that there is every likelihood of alienating the schedule property to SRK, J CRP Nos.3200 of 2025 6 third parties during pending litigation before the trial Court. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that directing the trial Court to dispose of, I.A.No.550 of 2025 in O.S.No.13 of 2025 by fixing certain time frame, would meet the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur is directed to pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.550 of 2025 in O.S.No.13 of 2025, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, after hearing both parties in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this Order. 9. With the above direction, Civil Revision Petition No.3200 of 2025 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 22nd November, 2025. DNB