APHC010113392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Friday, the 14 The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No. 2256 of 2026 Between: 1. Kamireddi Ravi Kumar Reddy, S/o. Kamireddi Venkateswara Reddy, aged 46 years, cultivation, R/o. D.No.4/122, 2 city and district. 1. Bommireddi Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, aged 47 years, 2. Bommireddi Harinatha Reddy 35 years, both are cultivation, R/o. Akkampalli village, Ananthapuram rural mandal, Ananthapuram district. Counsel for the petitioner S. Krishna Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Nil IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311] Friday, the 14th day of August, 2026 Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No. 2256 of 2026 Ravi Kumar Reddy, S/o. Kamireddi Venkateswara Reddy, aged 46 years, cultivation, R/o. D.No.4/122, 2nd road, Ananthapuram ... Petitioner and 1. Bommireddi Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, aged 47 years, 2. Bommireddi Harinatha Reddy, S/o. Late Lakshmi Reddy, aged about both are cultivation, R/o. Akkampalli village, Ananthapuram rural mandal, Ananthapuram district. ... Respondents etitioner : espondents: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Ravi Kumar Reddy, S/o. Kamireddi Venkateswara Reddy, road, Ananthapuram ... Petitioner 1. Bommireddi Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, aged 47 years, , S/o. Late Lakshmi Reddy, aged about both are cultivation, R/o. Akkampalli village, Ananthapuram rural espondents 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.2256 of 2026 The Court made the following order: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 27-01-2026 dismissing C.M.A No.14 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Ananthapuram confirming the order dated 16-09-2025 in I.A.No.379 of 2025 in O.S.No.1063 of 2025 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ananthapuram directing issuance of notice to the respondent / defendant. 02. The revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.1063 of 2025 against the respondents seeking permanent injunction. Along with the suit, an interlocutory application I.A.No.379 of 2025 was filed under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction. On 16.09.2025, the trial Court directed issuance of notice to the respondents Nos.1 and 2. As no ad-interim injunction was granted, the aggrieved plaintiff preferred C.M.A.No.14 of 2025 before the IV-Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu. The appeal was dismissed on 27.01.2026 holding that issuance of notice is not an appealable order. 03. Then, this revision petition was filed challenging the order in C.M.A.No.14 of 2025. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that an appropriate direction may be given to the trial Court for early disposal of I.A.No.379 of 2025, since it is pending from its inception. He referred to decisions of this High Court in Shaik Sanaulla Vs. D.Suresh Kumar1 in which it was held in paragraph No.4 as follows: “4.The above referred provision enables the Court to grant temporary injunction even without issuing notice 1 2015 (4) ALT 813 (S.B.) 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No.2256 of 2026 to the respondents. The above provision has been made with an intention to preserve the property as it is. When any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors or where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may grant a temporary injunction. Of Course, the plaintiff has to establish prima facie case. It becomes the duty of the Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not. The Courts should go through the averments made by the party in the supporting affidavit and also the pleadings and documents filed in support of the case of the plaintiff. When a prima facie case is made out, the Courts must grant temporary injunction and see that the plaintiff is not dispossessed in the meanwhile. The urgency of passing of orders under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. should be kept in mind. Even where the Court is not inclined to grant temporary injunction or decides to issue urgent notice in that case also the Court should issue urgent notice and post the matter to a shortest date. The Court should examine what is the reasonable time required to serve the notice upon the respondents. Where the plaintiff undertake to serve the notice within two or three days, the matter need not be adjourned to a longer date. It can be posted within four days or a week. When there is urgency in the matter the attitude 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No.2256 of 2026 of the Courts in posting the matter to a longer date, in fact defeat the purpose of Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC”. 04. He relied on another decision in a case between Vaitla Rama Murthy and others Vs. Marisetty Satyanarayana2, in which it was held in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 as follows : “9. In a case of Smt.K.Vijaya Lakshmi v. G. Nageswara Reddy and others (1) 2015 (3) ALT 476 = 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 684, wherein the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, observed as under : “ Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C enable the Court to grant temporary injunction even without issuing notice to the opposite party. The said provision has been made with an intention to preserve the property as it is. When any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being waster, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or whether the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors or where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit the Court may grant a temporary injunction. The plaintiff has to establish prima facie case. It becomes the duty of the Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not. The Court further observed that the Courts should examine what is reasonable time required to serve the notice within two or three days. The matter need not be adjourned to longer date.” 2 2025 (3) ALT 427 (S.B.) 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No.2256 of 2026 10. The purpose of issuing urgent notice in Courts is address situations requiring immediate action, such as, imminent danger or threatens to safety, the potential financial loss or risk of violative legal right ensuring legal system can respond that to intervene strictly in situations where irreparable harm and justice and crucial for safeguarding rights of the individual who are facing immediate threats or potential harm and further enable legal system to respond to ensure the justice is served in a timely manner, so in view of the same, urgent notice issued and usually adjourned the matter. Accordingly, in this case the trial Court has issued urgent notice and on appearance of the defendant / respondent the matter has been usually adjourned for two months is not proper, moreover it is defeating the purpose of urgent notice. ” 05. Since the very purpose of filing the interlocutory application seeking protection would be defeated if the matter is delayed inordinately, the revision petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to expeditiously dispose of I.A.No.379 of 2025 in O.S.No.1063 of 2025 as early as possible, not later than one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated. 14.08.2026 Note: CC by 19.08.2026 GRL 6 BSB,J C.R.P.No.2256 of 2026 139 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi C.R.P. No.2256 of 2026 Dated. 14.08.2026 Note: CC by 19.08.2026 GRL