APHC010404452024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. CHALLAGUIIA LOKESWARA RAO, S/O LATE LAKSHMI PERUMALLU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O REMALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 1. KODALI BABJI, S/O LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O JABARLAPUDI VILLAGE, VUYYURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF 2. YANAMADALA UDAYA LAKSHMI, W/O SIVA RAMAKRISHNA@ SIVA RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O REMALLI VILLAGE,BAPULAP 3. YANAMADALA SIVA RAMAKRISHNA SIVA RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O REMALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. YANAMADALA KISHORE, S/O SIVA RAMAKRISHNA @ RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O REMALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS REVISION AS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2127 OF 2024 CHALLAGUIIA LOKESWARA RAO, S/O LATE LAKSHMI PERUMALLU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O REMALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND KODALI BABJI, S/O LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O JABARLAPUDI VILLAGE, VUYYURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF YANAMADALA UDAYA LAKSHMI, W/O SIVA RAMAKRISHNA@ SIVA RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O REMALLI VILLAGE,BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. YANAMADALA SIVA RAMAKRISHNA SIVA RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O REMALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. YANAMADALA KISHORE, S/O SIVA RAMAKRISHNA @ RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O REMALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS REVISION AS [3333] THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER CHALLAGUIIA LOKESWARA RAO, S/O LATE LAKSHMI PERUMALLU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O REMALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU ...PETITIONER KODALI BABJI, S/O LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O JABARLAPUDI VILLAGE, VUYYURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. YANAMADALA UDAYA LAKSHMI, W/O SIVA RAMAKRISHNA@ SIVA RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O REMALLI ADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. YANAMADALA SIVA RAMAKRISHNA SIVA RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O REMALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU YANAMADALA KISHORE, S/O SIVA RAMAKRISHNA @ SIVA RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O REMALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS REVISION AS 2 VS, J C.R.P.No.2127 of 2024 NO RELIEF IS CLAIMED IN THE LOWER COURT) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to Allow the CRP and SET-ASIDE the order dated 06-09-2024 made in lA No. 187 of 2024 in O.S. No. 27 of 2023 (common order in lA No. 189 of 2024 and lA No. 187 of 2024 in OS No. 27 of 2023) on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid, IA NO: 1 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 pleased to Stay all further proceedings in pursuance of order dated 06-09-2024 made in lA No. 187 of 2024 in O.S. No. 27 of 2023 (common order in lA No. 189 of 2024 and lA No. 187 of 2024 in OS No. 27 of 2023) on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid, Krishna District, pending disposal of main C.R.P. 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 vacate the interim stay order dated 28.09.2024 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CH B R P SEKHAR 3 VS, J C.R.P.No.2127 of 2024 The Court made the following order: The petitioner/1st defendant in O.S.No.27/2023 has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the common orders dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Court below insofar as it related to I.A.No.187/2024. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff herein has filed O.S.No.27 of 2023 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Nuzvid, against the petitioner and others for the relief of injunction with regard to way or Donka at a width of 5 yards and at length about two furlongs, as described “ABCD” in the plaint rough sketch, in R.S.No.91, 92, 90/1, 90/2 etc of Remalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioner herein has filed a written statement and counter contending that there is no way or donka as alleged by the respondent No.1 herein adjacent to the land held by the petitioner’s daughter and son-in-law and has also filed FMB to establish that as per the revenue records there is no way or donka as alleged. 3. After hearing both sides, the trial Court by orders dated 26.7.2023 in I.A.No.348 of 2023 granted injunction in favour of respondent No.1 herein. Aggrieved by which the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal vide C.M.A.No.5 of 2023 on the file of the XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid, along with an application to grant status quo till filing of the counter by the respondent No.1 herein. While 4 VS, J C.R.P.No.2127 of 2024 so, the respondent No.1 herein filed two applications i.e., I.A.No.187 of 2024 in O.S.No.27 of 2023 seeking police protection in exercising his right of way through plaint schedule property and I.A.No.189 of 2024 seeking to attach the property and to detain the petitioner herein in civil prison for alleged violation of the injunction orders. 4. Both the applications filed by the respondent No.1 herein were allowed by the Court below on 06.9.2024 by way of a common order. By virtue of the said order, the schedule property was attached and the petitioner herein was directed to be detained in civil prison for a period of three months. The petitioner herein was also directed to remove the embedded stone poles and barbed wire fence with the police aid. Challenging the orders granting police aid, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 5. When this Civil Revision Petition came up for admission on 20.9.2024, this Court was pleased to stay the impugned common order dated 06.9.2024 by the Court below. 6. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1, as well as Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that challenging the orders passed by the trial Court in 5 VS, J C.R.P.No.2127 of 2024 I.A.No.348 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2023 wherein the trial Court has granted interim injunction in favour of respondent No.1 herein, the petitioner/1st defendant has already preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal vide C.M.A.No.5 of 2023 on the file of the XV Additional District Judge, at Nuzvid, along with an application for grant of interim relief and the same is pending for adjudication. However, in the mean while, respondent No.1 herein having known the fact of preferring an appeal has filed two applications seeking police aid as well as attachment of the property and also to detain the petitioner herein in civil prison for violation of the injunction orders dated 26.7.2023. Though the petitioner herein has seriously objected for the same on the ground of pendency of C.M.A.No.5 of 2023 before the Court below, even without considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court has allowed both the applications vide common orders dated 06.9.2024. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner herein has already preferred an appeal challenging the injunction orders. The Trial Court ought to have granted him some time to get some relief in the appeal preferred by him but instead of doing so, the trial Court has proceeded with the two interim applications preferred by the petitioner herein for violation of injunction orders and passed the impugned common order. 6 VS, J C.R.P.No.2127 of 2024 9. In view of the said submissions, it can be observed that when the injunction order itself is under challenge by way of appeal by the petitioner herein, the question of seeking police aid to comply with the said order does not arise. Even otherwise if the injunction order is complied, the cause of preferring appeal by the petitioner would not survive anymore. In view of the same, instead of going into merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to direct both the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the C.M.A.No.5 of 2023 on the file of the XV Additional District Judge, at Nuzvid. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 25.09.2025 TJN/BSK 7 VS, J C.R.P.No.2127 of 2024 188 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2127 OF 2024 Date: 25.09.2025 TJN/BSK