APHC010292982024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1530/2024 Between: 1. CHAVA RAMESH BABU, S/O LATE RAMA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O D.NO.64-5-5, ZPH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA-520007 ...PETITIONER AND 1. NADELLA SITA RAVAMMADIED, (DIED) 2. NADELLA VENKATARATNAM, , S/O. VENKATARATNAM, AGED 72 YEARS, R/O PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA. 3. NADELLA VISHNU VARDHAN, , S/O. VENKATARATNAM, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.61,3RD MAIN ROAD, SLV LAYOUT, NAGANTHAPURA HOSA ROAD, BANGALORE. 4. PARCHURI VASUDHA DEVI, W/O. CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.176/C, ADDAGUTTA SOCIETY, OPP VIJETHA COLLEGE, KUKKATPALLI HOUSING BOARD, OPP JNTU, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Being aggrieved by the order Dt 24.06.2024 passed in 2 I.A.No. 496/ 2023 in A.S.No. 56/2023 by learned VII Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada, the Petitioner is constrained to file the C.R.P. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to grant temporary injunction restraiing the Respondents from interfering with my peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No. 526/2008 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge court pending the-C.R.P and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings including execution of the Decree Dt:. 25.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.526/2008 on the file of the learned PrI., Sr., Civil Judge Vijayawada pending the C.R.P and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 to vacate the interim orders of stay passed on 25.07.2024 in CRP No. 1530 of 2024, and to dismiss the above CRP in the interest of Justice and pass 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 to extend the interim stay granted in C.R.P.NO. 1530/2024 vide the order Dt.25.7.2024 pending the C.R.P and pass IA NO: 2 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 reopen the C.R.P No. 1530 of 2024 and hear to decide on merits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 3 1. VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAMBOJU BALA GOPAL 2. The Court made the following: ORDER: Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.496 of 2023 in A.S.No.56 of 2023 on the file of Court of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dated 24.06.2024, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioner is the appellant and the respondents are the respondents in the appeal. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit vide O.S.No.528 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for specific performance of suit agreement of sale dated 27.09.1989 and to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction. The said suit has been decreed on 25.04.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the 6th defendant one Sri Chava Ramesh Babu (petitioner herein) preferred appeal in A.S.No.56 of 2023 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, who claims to be the purchaser of the suit schedule property before filing the suit itself. Along with the appeal, he also filed I.A.No.496 of 2023 under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC duly praying the Court to stay all further proceedings including execution of decree and judgment in O.S.No.528 of 2008 dated 25.04.2023. After hearing the parties, the First Appellate Court, 4 dismissed the said I.A.No.496 of 2023 by its order dated 24.06.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Bala Gopal, learned assisting counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory application and the grounds of the revision submitted that First Appellate Court dismissed the interlocutory application vide I.A.No.496 of 2023, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the appellant and thereby committed a serious mistake in arriving at a conclusion that the appellant is not entitled for grant of stay of execution of decree. He further submitted that the appellant purchased the plaint schedule property under registered agreement of sale and General Power of Attorney coupled with possession, in the meantime the suit has been filed wherein a decree has been passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. If the said decree is executed the petitioner appellant rights would be affected and he will be dispossessed. If the order impugned is allowed to subsist, a serious civil consequences will be occurred which cannot be compensated to the appellant. He further submitted the order passed by the appellate court is 5 contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, accordingly, prayed allow the Civil Revision Petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has no right over the suit schedule property, even according to him, he is only agreement holder. Without accruing any right over the suit schedule property, the question of filing appeal and asking for stay does not arise. In the said circumstance, if decree is stayed, the fruits of the decree cannot be enjoyed by the plaintiff/respondents herein. He further contended that by virtue of the suit agreement, the plaintiff/respondents herein are in possession of the property from 27.09.1989, as such, the question of dispossessing appellant/petitioner herein does not arise. The Court below has rightly dismissed the interlocutory application in I.A.No.496 of 2023. The petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein is also a party to the suit and he contested the suit, wherein the Court below has decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said decree and judgement passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.528 of 2008 dated 25.04.2023, the 6th defendant/petitioner herein preferred appeal in A.S.No.56 of 2023. Along 6 with appeal, he also filed I.A.No.496 of 2023 under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC duly praying the Court to stay all further proceedings including execution of decre and judgement in O.S.No528 of 2008 dated 25.04.2025 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 8. The contention of the 6th defendant/petitioner herein is that before filing the suit itself, he purchased the plaint schedule property under registered agreement of sale cum general power of attorney and is in possession of the property. The appellant/petitioner herein is claiming to be in possession of the property whereas the respondents/plaintiffs are also claiming to be in possession of the property. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the first appellate court can re-examine both questions of fact and law and may re-appreciate the evidence on record. Its powers are as extensive as the original court’s, meaning it can reconsider the need for interim protection. Interim relief is designed to aid the main relief and ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous. It aims to prevent irreparable hardship that might be caused while the case is pending final determination. The grant of appropriate relief is a discretionary power of the appellate court, and the same must be exercised judicially based on the well-settled principles of a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. The Court must weigh the potential injury to both parties. 7 10. This Court sitting under revisional jurisdiction is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the case and decide who is in possession of the property. However, an appeal is considered as a continuation of the Original Suit and the Appellate Court has co-extensive power to grant appropriate interim relief to prevent irreparable injury and preserve the status quo pending final disposal of the appeal. If no interim orders are granted, the purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated. The Court below, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, dismissed the application erroneously. To meet the ends of justice and to strike the balance, this Court is inclined to grant an order of status quo as on today pending appeal. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed granting status quo obtaining as on today. The Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal at the earliest not later than six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 10th February, 2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 17.02.2026 B/o RKS