1 APHC010089162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 93/2025 Between: Mallidi Sathireddy and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Mallidi Srinivasa Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following Judgment: The respondents had approached the II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, by way of O.S.No.3 of 2025, seeking for declaration of title and injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the possession of the respondents, over the suit schedule properties, and an injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the plaint schedule properties. Along with this suit, the respondents are said to have filed 2 I.A.No.156 of 2024, seeking a relief of temporary injunction restraining the appellants, their men and agents from alienating the petition schedule properties or otherwise dealing with the schedule properties in any manner including dispossession by forcible means and also issue ad interim orders of injunction in the interest of justice. 2. The trial Court, by an order dated 07.02.2025, had granted an interim injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the schedule property as well as interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, by the respondents herein. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants. 4. Sri C. Subodh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails the order on merits as well as on the maintainability of the application itself. Sri C. Subodh, relies upon Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice, which reads as follows: There shall be separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. When several relief’s are combined in one application, the court may direct the applicant to confine the application only to one of such relief’s unless the relief’s are consequential and to file a separate application in respect of each of the others. 5. Sri C. Subodh would contend that the relief of injunction restraining alienation and the relief of injunction against dispossession are two separate and different reliefs which cannot be treated to be consequential to 3 each other. In such circumstances, both reliefs of injunction could not have been sought in one application. 6. A reading of the said Rule shows that when two reliefs are sought in one application, it would be the duty of the Court to direct the applicant to restrict himself to one relief and to file a separate application for the second relief. In the present case, in the absence of the respondents before us, it would be difficult for us to restrict the relief either to an injunction of alienation or to an injunction of dispossession. 7. In such circumstances, this appeal is disposed of relegating the appellants to approach the trial Court, in this regard. Needless to say, it would also be open to the respondents to set out their case before the trial Court in this regard. Apart from this, it would also be open to the appellants to assail the order dated 07.02.2025, on the merits of the case, before the trial Court. 8. At this stage, Sri C. Subodh learned counsel for the appellants would also contend that the relief of injunction against dispossession was hand written at later stage and consequently the relief should be restricted to an injunction restraining alienation only. In view of the fact that, it would be open to the respondents to give up one relief in the application, it would not be appropriate for this Court to unilaterally determine which injunction is to be granted. 4 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J RJS 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM C.M.A No.93 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 21.02.2025 RJS