WA/343/2026 of Nuvva Bheemaraju Vs Ankamreddi Nookaraju @ Jameelu on 1 April 2026

APHC010138992026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

WRIT APPEAL NO: 343 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-100

Nuvva Bheemaraju and others ...Appellants Vs. Ankamreddi Nookaraju Jameelu and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. K. S. Murthy, Sr. Counsel Advocates for Respondents : Mrs. T. V. Sri Devi

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 2nd April 2026 P C :

The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 05.12.2025, passed in W.P.No.33483 of 2025.

2. The writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein approached the Writ Court seeking a Mandamus directing the official respondents as also seeking police aid for implementation of the judgment and decree, dated 28.07.2025, in O.S.No.26 of 2013, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, in respect of the petitioner’s suit schedule lands to the extent of Ac.17.00 Cents situate in Sy.Nos.15/1, 15/2, 31/1, 31/2, 31/3, 31/4, 31/5, 31/8, 32/2, 32/6 and 18/2 of China Jaggampeta, Nathavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District. By virtue of the judgment and decree, dated 28.07.2025, the petitioner

HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.343 of 2026

had obtained a decree for permanent injunction against the unofficial respondents in respect of the suit land.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants herein would submit that the petitioner had made a false statement before the learned single Judge that no appeal had been preferred till the date of the judgment and order impugned in the present writ appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court below. This, it is stated, was false inasmuch as an appeal was in fact filed in the month of November, 2025.

4. On a specific query as to whether the petitioner had caused his appearance in the appeal preferred by the appellants or not, Mr. K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, states that no appearance had been caused. As to whether the petitioner stood served and had knowledge about the filing of the appeal preferred by the appellants, even on this aspect, the learned Senior Counsel states that he had no information in that regard.

5. Be that as it may, apart from the above, what was urged by Mr. K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, is that the petitioner had deliberately kept the appellants out of the array of respondents and, as against the 35 defendants in the civil suit, only four of the defendants were arrayed as respondents in the writ petition. In addition to this, it was stated that no opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellants and

HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.343 of 2026

that the writ petition came to be disposed of without issuing any notice to the respondents/appellants herein.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the record, it can be seen that appellants have annexed a copy of the writ petition, which was filed by the petitioner before the learned single Judge, which reflects the names as respondents of all those who were otherwise stated to be the defendants in the civil suit, which was decreed. Therefore, to say that only four of the defendants were incorporated as respondents in the writ petition may not be correct, notwithstanding the fact that the names of only four unofficial respondents among 35 are reflected as respondents in the judgment and order impugned, which is placed on record.

7. Apart from this, it is clear that the petitioner was equipped with the judgment and decree wherein permanent injunction appears to have been granted in his favour and against the defendants/appellants herein. It is also admitted that the said order of injunction was still in force and that the judgment and decree has not been stayed in appeal proceedings.

8. In those circumstances, the order passed by the learned single Judge by virtue of the judgment and order impugned cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or perverse and assuming that an opportunity of being heard had been granted to the appellants herein, the same would have been only a useless formality, inasmuch as unless and until the operation of the judgment and decree is stayed, the petitioner would be entitled to seek

HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.343 of 2026

protection of his suit property till such time at least the said judgment and decree remains in operation.

9. We find no merit in the present appeal and is accordingly dismissed, leaving it free to the appellants herein to work out their remedies before the appellate Court in which the Civil First Appeal is pending. The order with regard to police protection shall not in any manner prejudice the outcome of the civil appeal preferred by the appellants. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J kbs

HCJ & RRRJ

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

W.A.No.343 of 2026

Dt: 02.04.2026

kbs