1 APHC010119552026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 128 OF 2026 Between: 1. RAINBOW DEVELOPERS, Plot No.40, Sunshine City Township, Jaladanki Village, Post and Mandal, SPSRNellore Distriet, Rep. by its Managing Partner Kolluri Sateesh, S/o. Pumaehandra Rao, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Door No. 74-6/2-3/5, SF-1, Vaibhav Resideney, Gottipati Brahmaiah Street, Ayyappa Nagar, Auto Nagar, Vijayawda-520007 ...Petitioner AND 1. KANDUKURI SREENIVASULU, S/o. Audiseshaiah, Aged 54 Years, Business, R/o. Door No.20/lA-7-284/15, 9th Street, Santhi Nagar, Dycus Road Centre, Nellore - 524004. 2. Kandukuri Padmavathi, W/o. Sai Ramanad, Aged 56 Years, R/o. H.No. 1- 54-1, Kakatheeya Nagar, East Kammapalem, Ongole City, Prakasam Distriet. 3. 3. Kandukuri Sudharani, W/o. Sreenivasulu, Aged about 52 Years, R/o. DoorNo.20/lA-7-284/15, 9th Street, Santhi Nagar, Dyeus Road Centre, Nellore-524004. 4. Potluru Sumalatha, W/o. Srinivasulu, Aged about 47 Years, R/o. Medavari Street, Allurpet Village, Allur Mandal, SPSR Nellore Distriet 2 5. Pachari Srinivas, S/o. Venkata Ramainaiah, Aged about 52 Years, Permanent resident of Chamadala Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and also resident of FlatNo.403, SreeNilaya Residency, Sector-11, B-Block, Near Sivalayam, Puppalaguda, K.V. Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. (Defendant No. 1) 6. The SubRegistrar, Allur, SPSR Nellore District. (R6 is Not a Necessary Party) ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: DR D VENKATA RAMANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MADHAVA RAO NALLURI 3 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 07.02.2026 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore, in I.A. No.775 of 2025 in O.S. No.91 of 2025, whereby the learned Judge granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant/2nd Defendant submitted that, even according to the averments made in the plaint, the grievance of the plaintiffs is essentially with regard to recovery of the amounts allegedly due from the 1st defendant. Instead of availing the appropriate remedy for recovery of money, the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for declaration and consequential relief, which, according to the learned counsel, is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. It is further contended that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Pursuant to the Agreement of Sale dated 24.06.2024, the appellant paid the entire sale consideration to the 1st respondent/ 1st defendant. It is submitted that it was the responsibility of the 1st respondent to discharge all existing liabilities, including the claims, if any, of the plaintiffs. The appellant has also denied the allegation that the registered documents were obtained with the assistance of the officials of Dagadarthi Police Station and the Circle Inspector, Kavali Rural Police Station. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Principal District Judge failed to consider the material placed on record and recorded no cogent reasons while granting the order of temporary injunction. 4 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that, during the pendency of the suit, the defendants, by misusing the police machinery and by causing registration of Crime No.70 of 2025, exerted pressure upon the plaintiffs, pursuant to which certain documents came to be executed and registered in favour of the 1st defendant. Thereafter, after obtaining cancellation of the mortgage deed, the 1st defendant proceeded to execute registered conveyance documents in favour of the 2nd defendant. It is contended that if the 2nd defendant is permitted to further alienate the suit schedule property or create third-party interests, the rights of the plaintiffs would be seriously prejudiced. Hence, the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court is justified. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 6. A perusal of the impugned order prima facie discloses that the learned trial Judge has not adverted to the settled principles governing the grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The impugned order does not contain any discussion or finding with regard to the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury. The material contentions advanced by both parties have also not been considered in their proper perspective. In the absence of such findings, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd defendant, on instructions, has undertaken before this Court that the appellant shall not alienate the suit schedule property or create any third-party rights or 5 encumbrances over the same till the disposal of the interlocutory application by the trial Court. 8. In view of the above undertaking and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 07.02.2026 passed in I.A. No.775 of 2025 in O.S. No.91 of 2025 by the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration of the interlocutory application, strictly in accordance with law and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. The trial Court shall pass a reasoned order by independently considering the requirements under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Till the disposal of I.A. No.775 of 2025 by the trial Court, the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the appellant shall remain in force, and accordingly, the appellant/2nd defendant shall not alienate the suit schedule property or create any third-party rights therein. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH _________________________ JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR Date : 23.07.2026 CHD 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.128 of 2026 Date: 23rd July, 2026 CHD