APHC010067452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3527] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 86/2025 Between: Eddula Venkata Swaroop Kumar Reddy and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Dr Devireddy Sridhar Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MUJTAHID HUSSAIN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 90/2025 Between: Eddula Venkata Swaroop Kumar Reddy, and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Dr Devireddy Sridhar Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MUJTAHID HUSSAIN The Court made the following: 2 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. C.M.A.No.86 of 2025 is concerned, both the counsels referred to the order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Proddatur in I.A.No.1291 of 2024 in O.S.No.29 of 2022, dated 03.01.2025. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/respondent Nos.7 to 10 before the trial Court submits that the respondent Nos.7 to 10 therein purchased the property for living purpose and they do not want to destroy those properties and they do not want to alienate the properties any more pending the suit proceedings. They claim only to make certain improvements for making better living conditions in the dwelling house and as well as in the shop rooms so as to maintain the property intact. However, even after recording the submissions of the said respondents still the trial Court restrained the said respondents from alienating, meddling, transferring, creating charge, mortgaging or dealing with petition scheduled property in any manner pending disposal of the suit by way of granting interim injunction vide order, dated 03.01.2025. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also submits that the order of the trial Court is very clear and it does not come in the way of the said respondents from maintaining the property without alienation and other material alterations of the structures. 4. In view of the above said submissions made and upon careful observation of the operative portion of the order passed by the trial Court, 3 dated 03.01.2025 in I.A.No.1290 of 2024 in O.S.No.29 of 2022, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. However, it is made clear that the respondent Nos.7 to 10 therein are permitted to continue with the said petitioners’ scheduled property by making necessary maintenance, repairs etc., to up keep the property pending disposal of the suit without claiming any equities. 5. C.M.A.No.90 of 2025 is concerned, the trial Court passed an order in I.A.No.1290 of 2024 in O.S.No.29 of 2022, dated 03.01.2025, restraining the respondent Nos.7 to 10 therein from changing or altering the physical features of the petitioners’ scheduled property till disposal of the suit by way of granting interim injunction. In this, no modification is required. 6. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. 7. The above observation made by this Court is equally applicable in both the orders. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN __________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA 24.04.2025 SCS 4 155 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 86 & 90/2025 Date:- 24.04.2025 SCS