APHC010597782023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3312/2023 Between: 1. MUKKAMALA VENKATA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. M.B.V. RAGHAVAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX OF VIJAYASRI INDUSTRIES, 13-45, OPP. SUB STATION, NIDAMANURU VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI KALESWARI TRAVELS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, CHALASANI RAMESH, S/O KRISHNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, D.NO.36-11-4, SANTHI NAGAR, 1ST LANE, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, A.P. 2. CHALASANI RAMESH, S/O KRISHNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, D.NO.36-44-4, SANTHI NAGAR, 1ST LANE, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, A.P. 3. CHALASANI UMA DEVI, W/O RAMESH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, PARTNER OF SREE KALESWARI TRAVELS, D.NO.36-11-4, SANTHI NAGAR, 1 LANE, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, A.P 4. CHALASANI NAGA TEJA, , S/O RAMESH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PARTNER OF SRI KALESWARI TRAVELS, D.NO.36- 11-4, SANTHI NAGAR, 1ST LANE, MOGHALRAJPURAM, 2 VIJAYAWADA, A.P. 5. TEJA INFRA, A FIRM REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DUGGIMPUDI BALIREDDY, S/O. MARRI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D. NO. 12- 455/1/F-6, FLAT NO. 209, ABC TOWERS, TA ...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 set aside the order dt.18.08.2023 passed in CMA No.1 of 2021 by the Honourable V Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 allow the C.R.P and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T V P SAI VIHARI The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Assailing the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 18.03.2023 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2021 as confirmed the orders passed by the trial Court II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A.No.531 of 2019 in I.P.No.80 of 2019 dated 07.12.2020, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioner is the appellant in C.M.A.No.1 of 2021 and petitioner in I.A.No.531 of 2019 in I.P.No.80 of 2019. 3. The revision petitioners filed I.P.No.80 of 2019 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. In the said I.P., I.A.No.531 of 2019 came to be filed under Order XXIX Rules 1 & 2 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code duly praying the Court below to restrain the 5th respondent and their men by way of temporary injunction for ever raising structures in the petition schedule property till disposal of insolvency proceedings. The 5th respondent filed counter which was adopted by respondent Nos.3 & 4. Respondent No.2 also filed counter independently denying the averments and inter alia prayed to dismiss the said I.A. After hearing the parties, the Court below dismissed the said Interlocutory application by duly observing that the order passed if any, touching the merits of the IP cannot be construed even remotely also, that this Court expressed or formed any opinion on the merits of the IP. Assailing the same, the petitioner herein filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2021 on the 4 file of V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, on several grounds. The Appellate Court, dismissed the said C.M.A confirming the orders passed by the trial Court under its order dated 18.08.2023. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri M.Rahul Krishna, learned counsel representing M/s CKR Associates, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assisting counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.V.P.Sai Vihari, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit interlocutory application filed before the Court below and the grounds of appeal before the Appellate Authority and the grounds of revision before this Court submitted that both the Courts failed to take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as Order XXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC in right perspective. He further contended that as on the date of the filing of the Interlocutory Application before the Court below, the land is vacant and the 5th respondent started construction and in those circumstances such an application has been filed. If by any reason, if the constructions are completed, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings, as such, these facts were not dealt rightly by the Courts below, as such, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 6. On the other hand, Sri Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5 justifying the orders passed by the trial Court as well 5 as the Appellate Court submitted that the petitioner has not properly pleaded nor placed material on record while seeking injunction under Order XXIX Rule 1 & 2. The petitioner miserably failed to satisfy the ingredients that are required under Order XXIX Rule 1 & 2 before the Court below. The Court below elaborately taken into consideration the evidence on record and material before it and rightly passed a reasoned order which warrants no interference by this Court under Article 227 and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the revision. 7. Sri T.V.P.Sai Vihari, learned counsel for respondents also contended in similar lines. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 9. The petitioner filed Insolvency Proceedings (creditor IP) under Section 7 & 9 of Provincial Insolvency Act and Rule 28 of A.P. Provincial Insolvency Rules to declare respondent Nos.1 & 4 therein as insolvents and to set aside the General Power of Attorney cum Development agreement dated 16.08.2019 executed by the 2nd respondent as null and void and to vest the petition schedule property by appointing the official receiver to take possession of the petition schedule property immediately and administer the same. As the 5th respondent is proceeding with the constructions by virtue of the said registered development agreement, the petitioner was constratined to file I.A.No.531 of 2019 under Order 6 XXIX Rule 1 & 2 duly praying the Court below for a direction to restrain the 5th respondent by way of temporary injunction from ever raising structures in the IP schedule property on the ground that the 5th respondent is likely to dispose of the subject property of IP and as a preventive measure, said application came to be filed. The respondents opposed the said application by way of counter. 10. The Court below, after taking into consideration the affidavit and counters framed a point for consideration which reads as follows: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for interim injunction restraining R5 from making construction over the petition schedule property or not?” 11. None of the parties were not examined entered into witness box. However, documents Ex.P1 to P9 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and Ex.R1 to R27 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 12. The Court below noted the main controversy between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 4 is as to whether respondent Nos.1 to 4 paid the amounts in terms of the compromise or not. The petitioner’s contention is that they failed to comply the terms of the award whereas the respondents’ contention is that they paid the amount. 13. After taking into consideration the material available on record, the Court below came to conclusion and held that the petitioner failed to prove prima facie case against the respondents and dismissed the 7 application with costs of Rs.3000/-. However, it was observed that the observation made in the order if any touching the merits of the insolvency could not be construed even remotely also and the Court express or form any opinion on the merits of the IP, those observations are made only for the purpose of disposal of the said Interlocutory Application only. The petitioners questioned the said order before the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, touching the facts and prayed the Appellate Court to set aside the decretal order passed in I.A.No.531 of 2019. 14. The Appellate Court, framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for relief as prayed for?” 15. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the documents available on record, dismissed the appeal holding that no reasonable grounds made out to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. Inasmuch as the grounds raised and urged before this Court are more on the factual side. This Court under Article 227 cannot frame independently or go through the facts which were dealt by the Court below. No valid ground raised or urged warranting the interference of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 23rd March, 2026 RKS