Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/438/2020 of ARJAS STEEL PVT LTD Vs BANJOUR AGENCIES on 29 December 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 438/2020 Between: 1. M/s ARJAS STEEL PVT LTD,
APHC010062832020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 438/2020
Between:
1. M/s ARJAS STEEL PVT LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE
SHRI
RAJESH
RANJAN
THAKUR,
CHALLAVARIPALLI, TADIPATRI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. M/s. BANJOUR AGENCIES, ADDRESS AT D. NO. 15-1311, SANJEEVA
NAGAR, TADIPATRI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER, JUTURU CHINNA REDDY GARI VIJAYA AND
JUTURU CHINNA REDDY GARI SAMYUKTHA REDDY, TADIPATRI.
2. SMT JUTURU CHINNA REDDY GARI VIJAYA, W/O. J.C. DIWAKAR
REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT D. NO. 15- 1311, SANJEEVA NAGAR, TADIPATRI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. O MANOHER REDDY
The Court made the following:
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 438/2020
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.
O R D E R:
1. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an Order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Gooty in C.M.A.No.3 of 2019.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that – present Respondent being the Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract basing on an Agreement of Sale dated 15.09.2003 before the learned Trial Court i.e., learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty. The Plaintiff prayed for ad-interim relief, which was turned down, against which, the Plaintiff approached the learned VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, in C.M.A.No.3 of 2019 and an Application vide I.A.No.1015 of 2019 was also filed praying for stay of the Order passed by the learned Trial Judge concerned. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Gooty in disposing the Ad- interim Application has passed the impugned Order, against which, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the Defendant.
3. Before going into the merits of this matter, it appears from the Plaint filed before the learned Trial Court that the Plaintiff/Respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of an Agreement of Sale dated 15.09.2003. The prayer in paragraph 12(a) of the Plaint is – to direct the defendant-company to continue to enforce the agreement dated 15.09.2023 as per terms and conditions till its expiration i.e., 30.09.2025. On plain perusal of the said prayer, it appears that the Plaintiff prayed for declaration against Defendant Company to enforce the agreement of sale dated 15.09.2003. As per terms and conditions, it was in force till 30.09.2025. The impugned Order of Injunction passed by the learned Appellate Court i.e., VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, is on the basis of the prayer made in the plaint. The time period for expiration of Agreement is already been crossed during pendency of this instant Civil Revision Petition. Furthermore, the Plaintiff never claimed any relief beyond the period of 30.09.2025. On the sole aspect as mentioned herein above, the Order of Injunction passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, in C.M.A.No.3 of 2019 cannot be extended beyond 30.09.2025. Accordingly, the Order passed by the learned Appellate Court i.e., VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, is hereby set aside by efflux of time.
4. I make it clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and pleadings of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent herein. All the merits and pleadings and prayer thereof be open to be decided by the learned Trial Court at appropriate stage.
5. Under the above observation, the instant Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Since the suit is pending from the year 2019, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit by passing necessary orders according to law, as early as possible, most preferably within six (06) months from the date of receipt of this Order.
6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:30-12-2025.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.438 OF 2020
DATED:30.12.2025.
KS