CRP/2127/2026 of Vakamulla Ramanamurthy Vs Chitri Padmavathi on 14 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.06.2026 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3 of 2026 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Srikulam.

2. The petitioner is the appellant/respondent and respondent is respondent/petitioner in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3 of 2026.

3. The respondent herein filed suit vide O.S.No.71 of 2023 for partition. In the said suit she filed I.A.No.401 of 2025, under Order 39, Rule-1 of Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim injunction restraining the defendant from further construction of pucca house in the schedule property. The said petition was allowed directing the petitioner herein not to demolish the petition schedule house and also stop further construction of pucca house on the suit schedule property. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner herein preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3 of 2026 and the same was dismissed confirming the order passed in I.A.No.401 of 2025. Assailing the said orders, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

4. Heard Ms. Vallabhaneni Santhi Sree, learned counsel, representing Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for respondent.

5. Ms. Vallabhaneni Santhi Sree, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before trial Court, contentions advanced in first RC,J

appellate Court and ground of Civil Revision Petition would contend that it has categorically been stated in the counter that the old house which was in dilapidated condition was demolished in the month of May, 2025 and the learned trial Judge had also extracted the relevant portion in the order, however, erroneously held that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if injunction is granted. He would further contend that the dilapidated house had already been demolished, now house was constructed therein and house warming ceremony was also held on 27.11.2025 even before passing injunction orders by the learned trial Judge. She would further contend that in the counter filed before the trial Court, the petitioner had undertook to partition the newly constructed house along with the suit schedule property, in the event the respondent wins the suit. He would further contend that the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss in case the injunction order is not set aside and accordingly prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for respondent while reiterating the contents of the petition filed before the trial Court and the contentions advanced before the first appellate court would contend that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court upon perusing the material and contentions advanced on behalf of both the parties had rightly considered the matter and there are no grounds warranting RC,J

interference with the concurrent findings. That the Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the old house was dilapidated and new house was constructed and house warming ceremony had also been performed much before passing of the injunction orders by the learned trial Judge. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended in the grounds of the Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner herein, in the counter filed by him in the trial Court, undertook to partition the newly constructed house along with the other suit schedule property, in case the respondent herein/plaintiff succeeds in the suit.

9. In view of the above categorical admission of the petitioner herein/ defendant in the suit, without going into other merits, this Civil Revision petition can be allowed in part.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part, recording the undertaking given by petitioner herein /defendant in the suit that partition of the properties would be with the construction made in the schedule property and that he would not claim any equities and modifying the impugned order that any construction made in the suit schedule property RC,J

would become part of the partition in case the partition suit is decreed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 15th September, 2026

RR