1 APHC010097692026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 109/2026 Between: 1. PINISETTI VENKATA KRISHNAMMA DORA, S/O LATE SAMUDRAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L. KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. VISWANADHA CHANDRAMMA,, W/O APPALAKONDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O RELLI GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L. KOTA MANDAL VIZIANAGARAMDISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. GEDDA APPANNA DORA, S/O LATE GURUMURTHY, AGED 69 YEARS, R/O RELLI GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. GEDELA VENKATA SURYA RAMU, S/O LATE GURUMURTY, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O RELLI GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. BEHARA APPALA KONDA APPARAO, S/O LATE SANYASIPALNADU, AGED 67 YEARS,R/O JAMMA DEVIPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT (DIED) (PETITION AGAINST R3 IS ABATED) 4. BEHARA SANKARA RAO, S/O LATE SANYASIPATRUDU, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O JAMMA DEVIPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. PARDHA SARADHI A V Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 109/2026 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short CMA) has been preferred by the Applicants/Petitioners being aggrieved by the dismissal order and Decree dated 31.12.2025 in I.A.No.745 of 2025 in A.S.No. 94 of 2025 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court i.e., Appellants as Petitioners and Respondents as Respondents. 2. The Petitioners being appellants in A.S.No.94 of 2025 filed an application in I.A.No.745 of 2025 under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of Civil procedure Code (for short C.P.C) for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/appellants, over the schedule property, pending disposal of the appeal. 3. Brief averments of the application in I.A.No.745 of 2025 in A.S.No.94 of 2025 are that:- The petitioners being appellants preferred the above appeal against the decree and judgment dated 27.09.2025 passed in OS 478/2025, by the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The 2nd appellant filed O.S.No.478 of 2005 and obtained interim injunction in respect of plaint schedule property and the 4 same was in force till the disposal of suit. 1st respondent is a medical practitioner at Visakhapatnam, having political and financial power. Taking advantage of the dismissal of the suit, the defendants with the active assistance of hired rowdy elements came to plaint schedule property along with three JCB's in the early morning on 06.10.2025 and damaged the structures situated in plaint schedule property in which the 2nd appellant and others are carrying on business and they also tried to do away with their lives. The appellants and others tried to resist their high handed action but they could not resist due to the usage of JCBs and participation of hired rowdy elements, and as such they lodged reports with the Station House Officer, L. Kota Police Station and the same registered as a case in Cr. No.93 of 2025 and another report lodged by the 2nd appellant is pending investigation. 4. The brief averments of counter filed by 1st respondent are that - he denied the material averments of the petition by contending that immediately after the 'dismissal’ of the suit, the respondents resumed normal acts of ownership such as cleaning, leveling and constructing a compound wall on their own land. These acts are well within their rights as owners and do not constitute any unlawful interference with the appellants rights and moreover the judgment of the court was intimated to this 2nd appellant along with other temporary shop keepers and they have voluntarily left from the suit schedule property and handed over to the original owners of the defendants but, appellants No.1 and 2 5 disobeyed the court judgment and tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the original owners by showing dangerous weapons of sharp edged knifes and manhandling over the original owners staff and tried to obstruct the owners work and moreover appellants No.1 and 2 tactfully drafted a report by mentioning some of the shop keepers in that area by creating story. The present appeal and the petition for injunction and stay are filed only to harass and obstruct the respondents and preferring an appeal itself does not automatically confer any right to injunction. Hence, there is no need for interim injunction as the appellants have no ownership documents and are not in possession and cannot having lawful claim, whereas the respondents have clear title and possession evidenced by registered sale deeds, property tax receipts and photos of the compound wall and occupation and hence requested to dismiss the appeal. 5. No oral evidence adduced on either side. The petitioners got marked Ex.P.1 – copy of caveat petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and before the Hon’ble District Court, Vizianagaram, Ex.P.2 – copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.93 of 2025 of L.Kota police station along with report of 1st petitioner; Ex.P.3 – copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.94 of 2025 of L.Kota Police Station along with report of 2nd petitioner; Ex.P.4 – copy of report submitted by 2nd appellant to L.Kota police on 07.10.2015; and ex.P.5 – Positive photographs – 25 in number with corresponding C.D., but no documents were marked on behalf of respondents. 6 6. Upon hearing both counsel and perusing the documentary evidence, the Appellate court dismissed the petition, without costs and directed both parties to get ready for disposal of the main appeal suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the said Order and decree, the petitioners/appellants have preferred the present appeal on the grounds that – the 1st appellate court ought to have allowed I.A.No.745 of 2025 and granted temporary injunction as a continuation of the interim injunction order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.2990 of 2015 during pendency of the suit, since the appeal is nothing but continuation of the suit and failed to appreciate Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 in I.A.No.745 of 2015 marked on behalf of appellants/plaintiffs which clearly shows their physical possession of schedule property and interference by the respondents/ defendants and also failed to confine itself to the existence of cardinal principles i.e., prima facie case regarding possession, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and failed to see that balance of convenience lies in maintaining status quo pending disposal of the appeal. Hence, prayed to allow the C.M.A by setting aside the order dated 31.12.2025 in I.A.No.745 of 2025 in A.S.No.94 of 2025 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram and to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with or altering the suit schedule property pending disposal of the appeal. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for appellants as well as respondents. 7 9. Admittedly, the appellants before this Court have originally filed O.S.No.478 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Vizianagaram (herein after referred to as Trial Court) as against the Respondents herein, seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and have also filed I.A.No.2990 of 2015 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short C.P.C) seeking temporary injunction during pendency of the suit. 10. Learned Trial Court after due adjudication of the case, has granted ad-interim injunction on 02.11.2015 and subsequently, after considering the vacate stay petition filed by the respondents vide I.A.No.439 of 2019, the Trial court after full-fledged inquiry dismissed I.A.No.439 of 2019 filed by the respondents by making the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 02.11.2015 as absolute till disposal of the suit vide Orders dated 26.04.2021. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed on 27.09.2025. However, the ad-interim injunction granted by the Trial Court on 02.11.2015 was in force till dismissal of the suit on 27.09.2025. 11. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.478 of 2015 dated 27.09.2025, the appellants herein have preferred the appeal in A.S.No.94 of 2025 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, and also moved an application in I.A.No.745 of 2025 seeking temporary injunction during pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed the said I.A.No.745 of 2025 filed by the appellants herein on the 8 ground that they failed to prove their possession and also interference of possession by the respondents after dismissal of the said suit. 12. Aggrieved by the said orders passed in I.A.No.745 of 2025 in A.S.No.94 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025, the present appeal has been preferred. 13. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and as well as the Counsel representing the Respondents. 14. When the appeal came up for admission on 05.03.2026, this court was pleased to pass the following interim order – “The respondent shall maintain status-quo of the structures in the schedule property as seen from the photographs annexed to the appeal shall be maintained till 10.03.2026”. 15. Perused the Order passed by the 1st appellate Court. It can be observed that though the 1st appellate Court has admitted the fact that till disposal of the suit on 27.09.2025 and the injunction was in force and soon-after the disposal of the suit, the Respondents have high-handedly demolished the structures in the plaint schedule property, the 1st appellate Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants herein contending that the pleadings of both the parties reveals that there is a dispute regarding the title of the schedule property. Except Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5, the petitioners have not filed any other proof to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property, after dismissal of the suit. 9 16. This Court is of the opinion that the Court below failed to consider that an appeal is continuation of the proceedings of the suit and when the ad- interim injunction order granted to the appellants herein was in force till dismissal of the suit on 27.09.2025, the Appellate Court ought to have considered that fact and ought to have allowed I.A.No.745 of 2025 filed by the appellants herein seeking temporary injunction during pendency of the appeal. 17. In support of his case, the learned Counsel for the Appellants relied on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (from Gujarat) (D.B), Mohammad Hanif Mohammad Ibrahim Patel & Ors., V/s Pallaviben Rajendra Kumar Patel & Ors, dated 18.11.2025, citation:2025 LawSuit (SC) 1535 Eq. Citation: 2025 INSC 1347 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “an appeal is a continuation of the original suit; The Appellate Court has co- extensive power to grant interim relief to prevent irreparable injury and preserve subject matter” and granted the Statu-quo pending the final disposal of the appeal. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the 1st appellate Court has gone into the merits of the case and on the sole ground that the suit has been dismissed, refused to allow I.A.No.745 of 2025 filed by the appellants seeking ad-interim injunction pending appeal. 18. Without considering the fact that the appeal is a continuation of the suit proceedings and wherein the appellants were granted interim injunction in 10 respect of the plaint schedule property and which in-fact, was pending till disposal of the main suit. In view of the same, there shall be a direction to both the parties to maintain status-quo till disposal of A.S.No.94 of 2025 and there shall also be a further direction to the appellate court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 19. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 11.03.2026. 11 72 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 109/2026 DATED 11.03.2026 KS