APHC010605392024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 553/2025 Between: 1. SURLA RAMANAMMA, W/O RAMULU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, CULTIVATION. R/O SABBAVARAM VILLAGE, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. SURLA SATISH KUMAR,, S/O RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O SABBAVARAM VILLAGE. SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. ADIREDDY RAMANA, S/O APPALASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O SABBAVARAM VILLAGE, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. AVVA HADISH MASZID, (ABATED) 3. SHAIK SILAR, S/O ABDULLAH, SECRETARY, AVVA HADISH MASIZID, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O 4-42, SAINAGAR COLONY, NEAR MARKET BACK SIDE, SABBAVARAM VILLAGE, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. SHAIK KHAN, S/O NAGOORU, VICE-PRESIDENT, AVVA HADISH MASIZID. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O 4-42, SAINAGAR COLONY, NEAR MARKET BACK SIDE, SABBAVARAM VILLAGE, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 5. LAGUDU AKKAMMA, W/O DEMUDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O 4-41, SAINAGAR COLONY, NEAR MARKET BACK SIDE, SABBAVARAM VILLAGE, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. LAGUDU PENTARAJU, S/O DEMUDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O 4-42, SAINAGAR COLONY, NEAR MARKET BACK SIDE, SABBAVARAM VILLAGE, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7. REDDY NAGALAKSHMI, W/O SOMUNAIDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O 2-35, TAVVAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, H/O AMRUTHAPURAM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 8. KORADA SREERAMULU, S/O SARIAAMMA,, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O GOPAL NAGAR, SABBAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 9. YEDLA RAMANA, S/O SANNIBABU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O BACKSIDE OF CO-OPERATIVE BANK, SABBAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 allow the Civil Revision Petition 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 suspend the operation of stay passed in I.A.No.643 of 2023 in A.S.No.9 of 2020 dated 09.07.2024 on the file of the court of the X Addl. District at Anakapalli, pending disposal of C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA 2. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI The Court made the following order: Heard Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 2. The revision petitioners filed O.S.No.85 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, against the respondents herein seeking perpetual injunction. Defendants 6 to 8 filed their written statement and contested the suit. The suit was decreed with costs and a permanent injunction was granted restraining defendants 2 to 8 from making any constructions in the schedule properties or changing the physical features of the schedule properties till finalisation of the final decree in O.S.No.9 of 1990 in I.A.No.854 of 2007 and deliver respective shares of the plaintiffs through the Court, by judgment and decree dated 30.12.2019. 3. Against the said judgment and decree, the 9th defendant in the suit filed the appeal. Along with the appeal, he filed an application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC seeking stay of the execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.85 of 2012 till disposal of the main appeal. The respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal have filed the above revision assailing the said order. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that taking advantage of the stay granted by the appellate Court, the 1st respondent is making constructions. He would further submit that the property in which the 1st respondent is making construction had fallen to the share of the revision petitioners in the partition suit O.S.No.9 of 1990. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st respondent purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 12.05.1990 during the pendency of O.S.No.9 of 1990. The 1st respondent was subsequently impleaded as a party defendant in the said suit. Learned counsel would submit that the 1st respondent has already constructed the building. She would further submit that the 1st respondent filed a statutory appeal against the decree in O.S.No.9 of 1990. 6. The point for consideration is: Whether the interim order passed in I.A.No.643 of 2023 in A.S.No.9 of 2020 on the file of the X Additional District, Anakapalli, staying the execution of the judgment and decree in a suit for injunction, is sustainable? 7. As seen from the material available on record, the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.9 of 1990 seeking partition of the plaint schedule property. A preliminary decree was passed on 04.09.2006. Thereafter, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, and a final decree was passed on 18.08.2022 in I.A.No.854 of 2006 in O.S.No.9 of 1990. The petitioners filed E.P.No.13 of 2022 seeking delivery of the properties as per the allotments made in the final decree. The apprehension of the revision petitioners is that the 1st respondent, who purchased the property pending the suit for partition, is making constructions in the property allotted to the petitioners in Sy.No.340, despite the decree passed in O.S. No.85 of 2012. 8. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st respondent herein already made construction pursuant to the sale as referred supra. Learned counsel would submit that the Ac.0.32 cents in Sy.No.340 is shown as item No.26 of the schedule property in the partition suit. 9. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.85 of 2012. Normally an injunction granted by a Court, in an appeal, the appellate Court needs to suspend the operation of the injunction. In the present case, the 9th defendant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.85 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, and obtained an order staying execution of the decree. The main apprehension, as noted supra, in the partition suit, the suit schedule property in the injunction suit was allotted to the plaintiff, wherein the defendant, the appellant in the appeal, is making construction. In the fact situation, staying injunction may not serve the purpose. The appellate Court needs to protect the interest of the plaintiff also. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct both parties to maintain status quo concerning the construction in Sy.No.340, admeasuring Ac.1.87 cents, bounded by East: House of Somadeva Somaraju and Baptist Church; South: Police Quarters; West: Bund; and North: Bund, being Item No.4 of the schedule property in O.S. No.85 of 2012, pending disposal of the appeal. 11. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. The learned appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Learned counsel for both parties shall ensure the cooperation of their respective clients for expeditious disposal of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 06.08.2026 SNI 137 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.553 of 2025 Dated: 06.08.2026 SNI