1 RRR, J C.R.P.No.410 of 2025 APHC010051712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 410/2025 Between: M/s. Swarna Group, ...PETITIONER AND Chekuri Venkata Lakshmi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR 2. The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri Alladi Radhakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-7th defendant and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 had filed O.S.No.43 of 2017, before the X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli, for partition of the suit schedule property, against respondents 4 to 11 herein. 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.410 of 2025 3. Along with the suit, respondents 1 to 3 had filed I.A.No.1106 of 2017 for grant of an ad interim injunction. The trial Court had granted ad interim injunction, which was extended from time to time. However, the said order was not extended in March 2018. 4. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 3, did not press I.A.No.1106 of 2017, and filed a fresh injunction petition in I.A.No.618 of 2023. As this application was kept pending, while the suit was taken up for trial, respondents 1 to 3 herein moved, I.A.No.581 of 2024 in I.A.No.618 of 2023, for taking up I.A.No.618 of 2023 before continuing with the trial in the suit. 5. The petitioner herein as well as the other respondents in these applications, filed their counter affidavits resisting the said application. The contention of the petitioner herein as well as the other respondents was that I.A.No.1106 of 2017 was not pressed without seeking any further leave and consequently a fresh application in I.A.No.618 of 2023 would not have been filed. Apart from this, the respondents also contended that the said application has been filed only to drag on the matter and not because of any difficulty in the conclusion of the suit. The trial Court, by order dated 01.11.2024, had allowed this application with the observation that both the parties in I.A.No.618 of 2023 to get ready by 13.11.2024 and that the petition was being allowed by reopening I.A.No.618 of 2023. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Curt by way of the present civil revision petition. 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.410 of 2025 7. Sri Alladi Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner is making certain constructions in the land and respondents 1 to 3 are seeking to stop such construction so as to pressurize the petitioner herein for a settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the matter is now ripe for trial and the trial had, in fact, commenced with the filing of the affidavit in lieu of chief by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out that the trial Court had not applied its mind to the present case as the operative paragraph of the impugned order states that I.A.No.618 of 2023 is being reopened when the said application had never been closed and was pending consideration. 8. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would contend that there is every need for the injunction application being considered at the earliest in as much as any construction carried out by the petitioner, would render any decree that respondents 1 to 3 may obtain in the suit, infructuous. 9. As can be seen from the aforesaid facts, respondents 1 to 3 did not have any injunction from 2018 as the interim injunction granted in I.A.No.1106 of 2017 was not extended. The subsequent application bearing I.A.No.618 of 2023 appears to have filed only in the year 2023. Further, the trial in the suit has also commenced. 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.410 of 2025 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, it would only be appropriate that the trial Court takes up trial and completes the trial expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 11. In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to complete the trial in the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Priority shall be given to the trial which shall not be halted, for purposes of disposing I.A. No. 618 of 2023, if it has not been disposed of till date. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Js. 5 RRR, J C.R.P.No.410 of 2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO C.R.P.No.410 of 2025 ____ August, 2025 Js.