APHC010234582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 295/2025 Between: 1. TAMATAM DURGA LAKSHMI, W/O.SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.4-42,MERAKA VEEDHI VILLAGE, KARAPA MANDAL, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. BALANAGU SRI USHA RANI, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, age 43 yrs., R/o.D.No.11-1-38/3, Flat GF-3, Manasa AVR Manner, Prakasam street, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada,East Godavari District. Presently residing of D.No. 4-43, Merka Veedi, Near Durga Temple, Karapa Mandal, Kakinada, East Godavari District ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersAppellant begs to present the above Appeal in this Honble Court aggrieved by the Order dt 10-03-2025 in I.A.No.1139 of 2024 in A.S.No. 92 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the IV Addl. District Judge at Kakinada, East Godavari District, 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 suspend the operation of Order dt: 10-03-2025 in I.A.No. 1139 of 2024 in A.S.No.92 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the IV ADDL.District Judge at Kakinada, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above CMA in this Hon’ble Court and pass such 2 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T RAGHU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P VIVEK The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 295 OF 2025 ORDER: The present CMA is filed challenging order dated 10.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.1139 of 2024 in A.S.No.92 of 2024 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge at Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. The appellant herein is the defendant in the suit/ respondent in the said I.A. and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit/ petitioner in the said I.A. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant submits that the respondent herein/ plaintiff instituted Suit vide O.S.No.119 of 2018 praying a relief to grant permanent injunction restraining the appellant and her men from interfering with appellant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. But the said suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein preferred an Appeal Suit along with I.A.No.1139 of 2024 seeking for an interim injunction restraining the appellant and her men from obstructing the respondent to reap coconuts and to remove dry leaves from the coconut tree situated in the petition schedule property. 4. On the other hand, the appellant herein/ defendant in the Suit filed a detailed counter affidavit in I.A., wherein, it is stated that the coconut tree is completely rotten in the trunk and it is about to break and fall, which is endanger. It is further stated that the panchayat officer and forest department 4 official have inspected the said tree and advised the plaintiff to remove the same. But the plaintiff is adamant to remove the same. It is further stated that the tree is aged about 35 years, 60 feet tall and the trunk of the tree was rotten and the plaintiff/ respondent herein did not reap the coconuts and also failed to remove the dried leaves. For which, the defendant made several requests/ complaints requesting the authorities concerned to take necessary steps. But no steps were taken so far. It is further stated that the plaintiff has to take up separate proceedings and she cannot club the issue involved in this petition in the appeal inasmuch as the suit was filed seeking injunction simplicitor and as such, requested to dismiss the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, the Court below passed an order dated 10.03.2025 in I.A.No.1139 of 2024 in A.S.No.92 of 2024, which is extracted hereunder: “It is specifically pleaded by the defendant that she made representations to the various authorities to remove the coconut tree on the ground that it was badly damaged and it may fall at any time. Till such decision it taken by the competent authorities on such representation of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot be restrained to remove coconuts and dry leaves. If the plaintiff is restrained, who would be held responsible if anything happends due to fall of coconuts and dry leaves; without any doubt, the plaintiff would be hled responsible. It is not the case of the defendant that she is not obstructing the plaintiff. In those circumstances, the petitioner/ plaintiff made out prima-facie case that she is entitled to reap the coconuts and dry leaves from the coconut tree and if injunction is not granted the plaintiff would be put to 5 irreparable loss if any untoward thing is happened. Thus, the plaintiff made out prima facie case, balance of convenience in her favour and if the respondent is not retrained by way of temporary injunction, the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss. In the result, the petition was allowed restraining the defendant and her men from obstructing the plaintiff from reaping coconuts and dry coconut leafs from the coconut tree of the plaintiff. However, this order does not prevent the concerned authorities to take appropriate action with regard to removal of coconut tree in question if warranted.” 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and on perusal of the orders of the Court below, this Court observed that the Court below rightly and cautiously observed and passed an order permitting the respondent herein to reap the coconuts and dry leaves, while cautiously clarifying that the order does not prevent the concerned authorities from taking appropriate action with regard to removal of the coconut tree if it is found to be dangerous. It is a fact that the appellant herein made representations to the authorities concerned for removal of the coconut tree, specifically stating that the tree is about 35 years old, 60 feet tall, and that its trunk is rotten and about to break and fall, thereby posing danger to passersby in the adjacent lane. Considering the apprehension of the appellant, the authorities were permitted to take appropriate steps for removal of the tree. It is further observed that, the appellant having pleaded in her representation and counter before the court below, there is endanger due to rottenness of the coconut tree and due to non removal of dried leaves by the respondent. But, now filing of the present appeal is contrary to her own 6 contentions raised in the revision as well as in her counter before the court below. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, there are no merits and the order of the court below does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present CMA is dismissed. However, the Court below is directed to consider the application, if any filed, for speedy disposal of the appeal after hearing both the parties. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 20.11.2025 BSP 7 148 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:295 of 2025 20.11.2025 BSP