Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/791/2026 of VEERASANI SRINIVASULU Vs T. SUBRAMANYAM REDDY on 12 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 791 Between: 1. VEERASANI SRINIVASULU, S/O LATE V.MALLAIAH, AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS,
APHC010132062026
IN THE H
(
FRIDAY, TH
TWO T
THE HON’BLE
CIVIL REV
Between:
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.
1. VEERASANI SRINIVA YEARS, OCC:CUL MITTOOR VILLAGE BANGARUPALEM MA
2. EERASANI MUNEN V.MALLAIAH, AGE R/o. HARIJANAWAD H/o.MOGILI PANCHA DISTRICT.
1. T SUBRAMANYAM R ABOUT 68 YEARS, VILLAGE, MOGILIPA BANGARUPALEM MA
Counsel for the Petitioner
1. Mr.K V L NARASIMHA Counsel for the Responde
1. Ms.SUDEEPTHI POTL
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT E SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA VISION PETITION No: 791 of 2026 ASULU, S/O LATE V.MALLAIAH, AGE A LTIVATION, R/o.HARIJANAWADA, E & POST,
H/o.MOGILI PANC ANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. DRAIAH @ MUNENDRA BABU, ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: CULT DA, MOGILI MITTOOR VILLAGE AYATH, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, C ...PETIT AND REDDY, S/O LATE T.CHINNABBA RED , OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O GAN ANCHAYATHI, MOGILI MITTOOR ANDAI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESP r(S): A RAO ent: LURI
ABOUT 63 MOGILI CHAYATH, S/o.LATE TIVATION, & POST, CHITTOOR TIONER(S) DDY, AGE DLAPALLI
POST, PONDENT
The Court made the following order:
The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by an order dated 19.12.2025 passed in C.M.A.No.8 of 2025 by the Principal District Judge, Chittoor.
2. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.1183 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor against the petitioners herein seeking a decree for Permanent Injunction. He filed I.A.No.1092 of 2022 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction.
3. The learned Trial Court by an order dated 20.02.2025, dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed the above said C.M.A.No.8 of 2025.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions to impress upon the Court that the learned Appellate Court went wrong in setting aside the order of the learned Trial Court and granting injunction in the appeal filed by the respondent. He submits that the order of the Trial Court contains reasons and based on material in record and in the said circumstances, granting of injunction is causing serious prejudice to the petitioners / defendants and the order of the appellate Court is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Ms.Sudeepthi Potluri made submissions to sustain the order under challenge.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
7. At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that the learned Trial Court, in its order dated 20.02.2025 though recorded a finding that prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff, has not granted temporary injunction on the premise that as per the documents filed by the respondents / defendants, the possession of the petitioner / plaintiff over the entire extent of 1.41 cents is not clear. In the appeal filed against the said order, the learned Appellate Court, after examining the documentary evidence on record and the requirements of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, found prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury in favour of the appellant / plaintiff, granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The learned Appellate Court expressed prima facie view that the appellant / plaintiff established the possession of the suit schedule property with supporting documents and as such, entitled to protect his possession, pending disposal of the suit.
8. This Court, on an appreciation of the matter is of the considered view that the order under revision warrants no interference as the same does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, considering the submissions made by counsel on both sides, the learned Trial Court may make endeavour to dispose of O.S.No.1183 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Dt. 13.03.2026 BLV
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 791 of 2026 Date: 13.03.2026 BLV