Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/1366/2026 of A NAGA RAJA KUMARI Vs SAVANTH SIVAJI GANESHAN RUS on 9 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1366/2026 Between: 1. A NAGA RAJA KUMARI, W/O LATE A . NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
APHC010193842026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1366/2026
Between:
1. A NAGA RAJA KUMARI, W/O LATE A. NARASIMHULU, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE R/OD.NO.43/151-2, PRAKASH
NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT- 516001.
2. A. NARASIMHA PRASAD,, S/O LATE A. NARASIMHULU, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS. GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/OD.NO.43/151-2, PRAKASH NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT-
516001.
3. A.N. SREE HARI,, S/O LATE A. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO.43/151-2, PRAKASH
NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT- 516001.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. SAVANTH SIVAJI GANESHAN RUS, S/O SAVANTH KRISHNAJI
RADO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O W/S ASI-286,KADAPA
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KADAPA, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT-
516001.
2. SAVANTH SREENATH RAO, S/O SAVANTH KRISHNAJI RADO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O ARSI-5775, DISTRICT ARMED
RESERVE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, CHRISTIAN LINE, KADAPA, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT- 516001.
...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 topleased to SET ASIDE the order dt.13-02-2026 passed in
C.M.A.No.18/2022 on the file of Hon'ble VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa by dismissing the same and confirm the order dt.18-04-2022 passed in
I.A.No.2097/2019 in O.S.No.1121/20 19 on the file of Hon'ble III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 pleased to STAY the operation of the order and decretal order dt.13-02-2026
passed in C.M.A.No. 18/2022 on the file of Hon’ble VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa till disposal of the main CRP by dispensing with urgent orders and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G RAMESH BABU
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1366 OF 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioners herein, who are plaintiffs, filed a suit vide O.S.No.1121 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, initially for permanent injunction and subsequently, filed amendment petition for recovery of possession. The petitioners filed I.A.No.2097 of 2019 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interference and I.A.No.2098 of 2019 restraining the respondents from making any constructions into the site of the petitioners. Both the applications were allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.04.2022.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2022, the respondents, who are defendants in the suit, filed C.M.A.No.18 of 2022 on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The learned lower appellate Court allowed the said C.M.A. vide Judgment dated 13.02.2026 and set aside the order dated 18.04.2022, inter alia, observing that the petitioners/plaintiffs, have not filed any document to show that they left two (02) feet on western side and one and half feet (01 ½) on eastern side and failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss etc., as it is the burden of the petitioners, who approached the Court. The said judgment dated 13.02.2026, is challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the prayer for recovery of possession and it was allowed. It indicates that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property.
5. This Court is not inclined to interdict with the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in C.M.A.No.18 of 2022. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to make an endeavour for early disposal of the suit vide O.S.No.1121 of 2019 on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 10.09.2026
KBN
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1366 of 2026
Date: 10.09.2026
KBN