APHC010572352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION N Between: Bukya Lakshmi Devi, W/o.B R/o Mudugulapalle, Sugalimitta, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. AND 1. Thalla Muraleedhar Cultivation, R/o Girirao Street, Madanapalle, and others. Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction O.S. No.75 of 2022 on the file of the Court of (Senior Division), Madanapalle against the with the suit, the petitioner filed I.A. No.337 of 2022 injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The learned Trial Court vide orders dated 03.11.2022 directed both parties to maintain status quo over the schedule property existing as on that date. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed C.M.A. No.23 of 2022. The learned District Judge vide order dated 23.9.2025 allowed IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2967 OF 2025 , W/o.B.Gopal Naik, Aged about 48 years, R/o Mudugulapalle, Sugalimitta, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. AND Thalla Muraleedhar, S/o Venkatramana, Aged about 63 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o Girirao Street, Madanapalle, Annamayya District ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Counsel for the Respondents: Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi The Court made the following ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction O.S. No.75 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle against the respondents herein. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed I.A. No.337 of 2022 seeking injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The learned Trial Court vide orders dated 03.11.2022 directed both parties to maintain over the schedule property existing as on that date. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed C.M.A. No.23 of 2022. The learned District Judge vide order dated 23.9.2025 allowed IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 2967 OF 2025 Gopal Naik, Aged about 48 years, R/o Mudugulapalle, Sugalimitta, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner , S/o Venkatramana, Aged about 63 years, Occ Annamayya District, ...Respondents Mr.Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction vide the Principal Civil Judge respondents herein. Along seeking ad interim injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The learned Trial Court vide orders dated 03.11.2022 directed both parties to maintain over the schedule property existing as on that date. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed C.M.A. No.23 of 2022. The learned District Judge vide order dated 23.9.2025 allowed 2 the appeal by setting aside the order of status quo and directed the learned Trial Court to dispose of I.A. No.337 of 2022 after hearing both parties as early as possible. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions with reference to the merits of the case, states that the learned Appellate Court directed to dispose of the above mentioned I.A., but the learned Trial Court did not take up the same for consideration and the suit is posted to 13.2.2026 for framing of the issues. He also submits that as there is no order of injunction in favour of the petitioner herein, the respondents are trying to interfere with the suit schedule property. However, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 disputes the said submission. Be that as it may. 4. On a perusal of the order under challenge, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the matter, providing that the learned Trial Court shall dispose of I.A. No.337 of 2022 in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from 13.2.2026 i.e., the date of next adjournment. 5. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J January 30, 2026 vasu