The High Court · 2025

NeeraireddvlnfrabuildPrivateLimited,HavingitsregisteredofficeatPlotNo. d."'i';;;l 'i. "i-iiu"- uriroin.q, uvaeiauao iech park' in-orbit mall road' rirriort;"'rili, ]ivoJirorJ--sbdoat.' nepresentet, bv ,its Director ie ' Mr' iiJ'iitil"obv ' Neeraj Reddv' ^^(ClN/Fir-m/Societvffrust-. . fg ijioirjblbTozzPTcl63i54) Ased a'bout 33 vears Residing at J Block' Mv il6r" er,-*6-bbp to eio:oiv-ersity, Hitech City, Hyderabad' Telangana - 50008'1 . --- ...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT NO.1 2/RESPONDENT AND 1 2 3 4 Baddam Surendar Reddy, S/o Late B. Kista Reddy, Aged about 51 years' Occ il;;;;;, R6. nlrlJi-'z+, Kondakal Village, shairkerpallv Mandal' Rangareddy District. Baddam Jyothi, Wo s. Surendar Reddy, Aged. about 46 years' Occ housewife' n7o*. ruN"i-z+, Kondakat viriigu, ShJfii ur"paily Mandat,'Rangareddy District. Telangana 501203. Baddam Uday Kiran Reddy' s/o B. Surendar Reddy'..Aged about 28 years ;;; ;;fil;;;a;oiovee, n/'o. H/No 1 -24, Kondakal Village, Shankerpallv rrrri"a jt, nangar6ddy District Telangana 50 1 203 Baddam Chandrapal Reddy, S/o B. Surendar Reddy, Aged. about 23.years' Occ Student. Rl/o.'H/No 1-24, Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Manoar, Rangareddy District Telangana 50'1 203. ' ...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS

5. Mir Wazid Ali Kamit. Sio Mir Zahid Ali Kamil, Aqed about 75 years, Occ Agricutture, H.No. 12_1 1_15Ss, ndir;ei, Hyf"iio"o. Bhu tkap u r Vilage, Shankerpatti ut JrulaL n, n ji'r6ioy oi.tri"t

6. Nomula Anjaiah, S/o Basavailah.- ggeq about 6g years, Occ agriculture, R/o 7. Nomula Anantham @ Anantha Ramuru Goud, s/o. rate N Shankariah. Aoed about 6e vears ociAoiicrri*e,'n7o iltrG;i iliid;, d;;#p:i[ ri#r,i; Rangareddy Distirct. r;ta;gLri' silri" -'-''Pvr Y I'rq 8. Nomura Bikshaoathi Bikshapathi Goud, s/o. Iate N shankariah, Aged about 65 years, occ Agricu tture, *o-eotffir. Vti"gl'Sha n rarpaily Ma ndat, Rangareddy Dis[rict. Telangana Statb

9. N Laxminan @ Laxmi N-arayana, S/o. late N Shankaraiah, Aged about 61 years, occ Agricutture R/o^l]otakpur Vilage, Sniniarpiirv M"";;;, il.g; reddy District, Telangana State.

10. Nomula Baslrvaiah, S/o late N. Rama Goud Aged about gZ years, Occ agriculture, R/o BhutkapurVi,age, Shankeiprilv nfiruii, nr,ns;ido_"0-y-oi.tri"t '1 1. Bandi Lakshmi Shruti 0{o^ Sandi Ganapathi Babu, Aged about 35 vears. Occ Business, Rto.1-1-18t176 rRr-186, Jilil;," rild;i',.:r',r,ilil'p""lijsaro' Hyderabad. Hyderabad,

12.Bandi Ganapathi Babu, S/o_Bandi Govind Rao, Aged about 63 years, Occ Business. Rto.1-1_18t176 rRr-186,Ja;h"i Ni'gxi chikk"'drdiil " "'" l3 Kranti Karidindi. s/o Sarva.narayana Raju Karidindi, Aged about 42 years, occ B usi ness R/o. 8-3-2 30/6a64 ;;; ;r,'6;;;i;;'i ir g" ; s h;n6;i -ri!ft ;j b,; 14.Patlolla_@ Prabhugari Jagan Mohan Reddy, p Gopal Reddy, Aged about 53 yea rs, occ B us ineis, Ro_"H. N o. 7i __si i/ | i,' rrlt riiirli;, n N ;6 ;;,'" Ramachandrapuram. SangareOay Oislrici.-' "*""'-' - " 1 5. Puram Gopi. Krishna, S/o-puram Laxmi Narayana, Aged about 45 Vears. Occ Municiparity, Business. Rio. H.No. 4-1OO1A, tttr*"t Otfrc" horl'i sr,i"i*ijjriv i;;;;;;y District. (Responoun,,o.t!?ll"Jpalty necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiitio;, ir'" iign court miy oe i[""'"0 t" suspend the impugned ord.er dated 28.03.2025, pasJed by tre n6oi. dirlri"i"no sessions Judge at cheveila, Ranga Reddy oi"tlciin rA.No.410 of 2025 in o.s No.405 of 2025 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI BHARATH REDDY BOMMINENI Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA C.M.A. No.153 0F 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon'bte Sri Justice T Vinod Kumar) ' The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.03.2025 in I.A. No.410 of 2025 in O'S' No'4O5 of 2025 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge at Chevella, Ranga ReddY District.

2. Heard learned Counsei for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record' 3. The appellant herein is the respondent No'12 in the interlocutory application filed by the respondent Nos l to 4 herein as petitioners. The respondent Nos'1 to 4 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for declaration. The plaintiffs along with the suit filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 3 read with Se ction 15 1 of CPC to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/ defendant No.12, the appellant herein from alienating the suit schedule property till the disposal of the rnain suit. The trial Court after hearing the petitioner/ plaintiff by order dated 28.03.2025 granted ad- interlm injunction till I 1.O4.2025. /,., 2 '.:J

4. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present appeal is filed on 21.04.2025. Further against the ex parte ad_interim injunction, the appellant herein ought to have availed the remedy provided under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CpC by entering appearance and filing counter therein seeking to discharge, vary or set aside the order. If only the appellant had entered his appearance and fired petition under order xxxrx Rule 4 cpc and if only the [rial Court failed to dispose ol. the said interlocutory application within 30 days as mandated uncler the Order XXXIX Rule 3A of CpC, an appeal can be filed as observed by a Division Bench ol this Court in lrLrtoucrtive pharma Surgicals a. pigeon Med.icat Deuices p) ftd., by referring to the decision of the Apex court in A. venko,to.subb,,iah Naidu v. S. Chellapppcrn2 wherein the Apex Court had held as under: 16. l-carned Singie Judge stated that thc trial court ought not to have granted ex partc injunction beyond thrrtv days to be in force. The said observalion is base.l on rhe language contained in Order 39 Rule 3_A of the Code rvhich reads thus: '3-A. Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, thc court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application witiin thirtu days from the date on which the injunction *a" g.unr"d; orrd where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability." I MANU / AP lOl4A/2OO4 , (2OOO)7 SCC 69s !a 3

17. The Rule docs not say that the period of the injunction order should be restricted by the court to thirty days at the first instance, but the court shoutd pass the final order on it within thirty days lrom the day on which the injunclion rvas gaanted Hence, the order docs not ipso facto become illegal mereiy because it was not restricLed to a period ol lh irty da1 s or less In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the 5. appellant instead of approaching this Court by hling the present CMA ought lo be relegated to approach the concerned trial Courtu,hichhadgrantedLLreexpartead-interiminjunction.

6. Granting libertY as above, the CMA is disPosed of No COSTS Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the CMA' shall stand closed -1. sdr- M. RaMAHTI$?HXt //TRUE COPY" SECTI FFICER To, District.

1. The Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Chevella' Ranga Reddy 2. One CC to SRI BHARATH REDDY BOMMINENI Advocate IOPUCI 3. Two CD CoPies t/ TPK/ABK HIGH COURT DATED:24l04t2025 i .t!1 THE S I.rr-;'\. v..\ /,) 16 sEP 205 \'' .\ r f:t-- 1 i.\ (' a + ORDER CMA.No.153 of 2025 CIUL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF , /5 E t / /