The High Court · 2025

leu.#^.:orfl ;g{pf ffil**',.d;qf,ftu$,ryfl:iiiffi ' Roffllil ft,', iii, sil"'t;fi $* {#f1ru,'^[;s,,,"Hn rcru ,or"=,:l,:?'"r;t**:ffiif;giilil{i}:trffi t 1. D. Srinivas ReddY, S/o Unknown, R/q. Kondak [iin"i]]rJ'3ffi oqi,,., ',, Il'ft1$'#3n4n Reddy, s/o. K. Kumaralwqmv R.eddv' Ased abput M9jo1' oqc' tlnknown, R/0. Kondat<aiViirlrii' 5-n'at<erpair}l uaniat'-nangq Reddy District' Tglangapa. ..RESp9NDENTS/RE9p91{qFNTS tN WP t:; t! IAN O: 1OF 2025 Petition uncler section 151 cpc praying that in the circurrst-ances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court rray be preased to suspend the ord'|-'rs of the learned singre Judge dated 22/04/20125 in r.A. No. 1 of 2025 in W. p No - . 917 of 2025. counsel for rhe Appeilaat: SRI V_.RAV|NDER EAO, sEfItOR CorJ[gg1 p6p !:::""1rortheRespo"r:::I:,:l'il,!tff#iill'#,[#1.;;--; tjounset ror the Responoenu.ros.z io iti;ffilil.teHAR REDDV KATRAM counsef for the Respondent Nos.7 To 12: *Gp The Court rngfle tfre foilowing; JUDGMEI_{T FoR REVENUa--' r !^ r'\Frrr" THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CIIIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HoN'BtE sMr':[3rIcE RENuxA YARA WRIT No. 509 of 2025 MENT (PertheHon'bletheectingChiefJuslceSujogPaut) learned Senior Counsel aPP earing for learned counsel for ttre appellant; learned counsel for resPondent learned Government Sri V.Ravinder Rao' Sri E.Venkata Siddhartha' Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao' No.l and Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram' Pleader for Revenue' for resPondent Nos'2 to 6'

2. This intra Court interim order Passed bY ol 2025 dated 22'O4'2O without Putting him to notice' appeal takes exception to an ex parte the learned Single Judge in W'P'No'11917 25 wherein the appellant is a party' but' the said order was Passed'

3. ln the opinion of this Court' the appellant has a remedy to file an application before the learned Single Judge for vacation of the interim order and apprise the court for vacadon't":.::': ord er and even apprise whether or not the writ petition rs maintainable or it suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties' etc. ln that event, it will be open for the learned Y9t 'r'as" consid,er such application and pass appropriate order' In 1 i i 2 W.A.No.5O6 of 2O2S and batch, dated 30.O4. 2025, it r.r.as held as under: _ "7. Adnrjrtedlv. the .appellants are parlv respo tdents before rhe t:arned si"sr;T;;;.'-.n.'r"J#.l Single Judge has pass,:ct the impugned "order ;tA;;; putting the appellanrs to notice. in"", -tr,.-"pp"n;ts;, certairrly file applicatiorLs for vacarion "r ,rr. fi"..lii'#o.. II such applicatior.:s are fiied, the tearned a;;fi;# will celtainly examine the same anrt in that ";;:i; J"liT, be sai,l that the order im;rugned pa.ssed by the learnJiiigt. .1.,a5," t." attainecl lin,rlitv or fals *itiri"'ii.-'rrniii"Ji 1ragr,.".r,,,. Thus, the juagment of the-suprem;^;";; ,]i. ", rndia v. ?::r^::: Buuders (pt Ltd. ttZr,r) 1l"'ici"irz) is ,:f no asslstance ir the factual backdrop f f tfri" I_rl,r.._ .Ihe point involved rn t LLis case is no more res integra. In cate na of judgments, i, was hercr.rh"r ";;;"; ;',[iJJ,X.".. orrrer, a patcn r Appear / wrtt a-pf J ;;;;;' ;,:..arne d rvith ^t, *: illiX,T"rlli;ilr and upon fuiniling ir,." ..q"i.._"n . of 8. _:":*:lr-;;;;'";;"".'.,i#"8:Tr:,.::t,iJ_if :"1:-"1.$:"j v. Sadik Hussain r20 l3-.scc^o;Lr""-ni;i..2]:. a Div sion Bench of tlre ersrwhile_High Court .f pradese at Hyderabad cc,nsidered crarise rs-oi;.';;;: patent and opined that rt trrrovides ".1l,op.., 11"- "!rag-Jnt,, of Single Judge in exer,)rse or originaljurisdicrion ,o , blri"ion Berch. The judgmer t r,f the Su"n-reme Court in Shai s";rrf.f Khimji v. Jayaben D.Kania rArR.J.e81 SC iil6);;ili=ta...a ana it was hetd rlrar .orders r"u*s rnd.;'";;;;;i;:i;;) and. (u,, are not 'judgmerft;' for thi u n d e r thi t ", In Universitv of ",,' i #f;.T. lif :Ji;,f,1o, !, 'n"a"fr.." i., i,i o " o "t f ,, :: " "(iv) Rourine orders which are passed to facititate the progress of t]-e case till its cuiminatio.. i.rt-.frl firrri judgrnent. o (v) L] cetoa and o t whi do not s of the CC CS ,1 3 Lastly, the Division Bench recorded as under: Atthe cost of the repetition, it is to t -"*:."d " tt,t ti" r."'"ed Singre ''*lt;lT#L3":'ffiff rights aad obligations o **mtent it witr be :tli",l*-:n":H ,;3 *f il,#, Jti",rff '""' irritt tt-r. said observation." ",rd (Emphasis Supplied) l , I I g. In MidnaPore Nanda ((2006) 5 S placed, the SuPreme Court held as under: Peoples' CooP. Bank Ltd' v' Chunilal Cc isst, on which heavY reliance ts "15. Interim orders / interlocutory orders passed d;i;;;;-;""Jencv of a case' fail under one or the other of the followrng categones: (r') Orders which trnally decide a question or issue rn controversy in the marn case' ( ir') Orders which l-rnally decide an issue which ,"",Jrlfy- r"a directJy a{fects lhe final decision in the main case. (iirJ Orders which trnally decide a collateral issue or ;;.;i;" which is not the subjecr-matter o[ the main CASE. (iul Routine orders which are passed to tacilitate the [:i;::J':; iiJ"""=' tu it= curmination in the frnal judgment (l,) orders which maY ::1;iffi:T'#::fH"J; some prejudice to a Party-' i"i"#i." *," rights and obligations of the parties' 16. The term "judgment" occurring in clause ;: ;;i";;;,1., il;#";;.";" '":T;;;;fforder l'J"t"'-*it"rr, "*il take into its fold not onlv-the '15.of ;;fined in Section 2(e) cPC and orders 43 Rule 1 cPC' but also other though may not frnally and 4 conclusively determin e the rights of parties with regard to all or an y matters in controversy, mirv have finality in regard to some collateral ma tter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocu tory olde rs n'hich fall under categories (t) to (ii) above ale therr:fore appeals under hand, orders falling the purpose of the Letters Patent. On the for the DU 'Judgm ents" for filir Lg othr:r a e D cai s of frlin IU t." (Emphasis Supplier t)

10. The Supreme Cou set and p.*"I^ii-ri;"-tt ]: a recent judgmenr in shyam -r i r J H-ffi ; [ ;: iJ,T;.l,*:"' Iniustries r imite ; ((z o z s r .11;^-lll. J upreme court laid down the 1j1rn us r esr to ocrermrne,r herher the.,ordel i_f"g".j..i" .,J,J.rdl,ment,, pu,"nT-ii'i,i" #ilL'.T lll ilX-"iiT::'" 0i,1.,,, mi ,er is principles' it \4'ill hc clet r that !r uv l-prgr;; :;;'.."'srtd :.1*y _dd r;i ;' ;#' il:,":[r ::l::i" =,I -l:,l:l::.,f : : 1,,"] main case, ( ir rhe impusned order nl"."i;;:,;:a a.y [55116 "a"Ia"" wnrch mar(.,riirlly or direitiy ,ff..ts finul ," rh,. Writ Petrtron,,liiil rhe impugned o.a.. ao."-rrl;il;:, -or '"r,r";' ;;;,1? iildS:: n,l.?*T;i:j:::: question , 4 Thus, rt e aro not inclined to interfere at this stage 5 Accordingly., the writ appeal liberty to the appellaat to f,rle such an 13. arned Single Judge. No order as to costs. 1S disposed of bv 'eserving application before the 5 Miscellaneouspetitionspending,ifany,shallstandclosed. //TRUE COPY/' 'o ',. ,n" Principal secretary' Revenue Departm ent, HYd \ SD/-8. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGTS TR SECTION OFFICER bad, State of ' A+En*fi nerry*sr**tt+*liuil*f urdRl#*';sii$i*f !?E Ye * | i;fiff49e.'mmsrm*mu"m;*i$i'+ PSK BS i i HIGH COURT DATED:30 tO4t2O2S JUDGMENT WA.No.509 of 2025 I t ,ae SLq tG ,(;; l'.:" ll2 I'ir' 20?5 ;.t -r'TC \ ) \i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ,ta) I