The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Appellants/Defendants AND

2. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders passed by the lAdditional District Judge, Kamareddy on 04-04-2025 in l.A.No. l2912025 in C.M.A.No.2t2O2S. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the order of status-quo granted on 02-05-2025 in CRp No 164112025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondents: K VENUMADHAV The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE PULLA I{ARTHIK CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.164L OF 2o.2s ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is hled under Article 222 of ttle Constitution of India seeking to set aside tLLe order dated 04.O4.2025 in I.A.No. 129 of 2O2S in C.M.A.No.2 of 2O2S passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kamareddy.

2. Heard Sri Vrjay B. paropkari, learned crrunsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitir:ner_plaintiff herein hled I.A.No.45 of 2025 in o.S.No.24 of 2o2s before learned I Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-Additional Jud:.cial Magis'ate of First Class (Special Mobile) at Kamareddy and by order dated 21 .O3.2025, the triat Judge allowed the said LA. , granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with r.he possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the schedule property till the disposal of the main suit. Aggrieved by the same, tlLe respondents filed C.M.A.N o.2 of 2025 before the learned I Add:tional District Judge, Kamareddy, seeking to set aside the ordt:r ar{C[ decree 2 PK,J ctp_1641 2025 passed in I.A.No.45 of 2025 in O.S.No.24 of 2025, dated

21.03.2025 by the trial Court. The respondents have also filed I.A.No. 129 of 2025 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 before the Appellate Court seeking stay of operation of order and decree dated 2l .O3 .2025. The Appellate Court by order dated O4.O4 .2025 allowed I.A.No.129 of 2025 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 and granted stay of operation of the order and decree passed in I.A.No.4S of 2025 in O.S:No.24 of 2025 dated 21.03.2025 till disposal of the appeal. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court ought to have seen that the order passed by the trial Court is well reasoned and unexceptionable; the Appellate Court erred in interdicting the orders of the trial Court in a casual manner without assigning any valid or cogent reasons; the Appellate Court ought not have allorved the I.A. on the very day it was filed and if the Appellate Court was of the opinion that the order of the trial Court is perverse, interim order for a limited period would have been passed. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the order dated O4.O4.2O25 in I.A.No. 129 of 2025 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 passed by the Appellate Court.

5. On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents and their family members were in 3 PK,J crp l()11 2025 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedulc property as per the judgment and decree dated 17.L0.2022 passed irL O.S.Nc,.24 of 2025 by learncrl Senior Civil Judge at Kamareddy. Considering the same and having regard to the apprehension e;<pressed by the rcspondents thert taking advtrntage of the order passt:d by the trial Court, the peti tioner-plaintiff may try to evict trc respondents, therefore the Appellate Court has rightly granted s;ta.l of operation o[ order and decree dated 21.03.2025 in I-A.Nc,.4S of 2025 in O.S.No.24 of 2025 passed by the trial Court anrl thus prays to dismiss the Rcv isior r Petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by Iei rned cc,unsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinic,n .hat since the subject mattcr involves valuable rights of the parties in respect of immovable property and any prolonged pcndency ol the appeal is likely to causc prejudice to either of the parties , lherefore this Court is of the view that it would be appropria.e to direct the Appellate Court i.e., learned I Additional llistrict Judge, Kamareddy, to dispose of C.M.A.No.2 of 2O2:> [[ed br. the respondents as cxpeditiously as possible.

7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the learned I Additional District Judge, Kamaredcly, to dispose of C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 hled bv the respondenLs as 4 PK,J cry 164t 2025 expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with raw. Tilr such time, both the parties shall maintai n status_quo, obtaining as on today, in respect of the subject property. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The I Additional District Jude Kamareddy. The Princioal Junior Civil Judge at Kamareddy. One CC td Sri Vilay B Paropakari, AdvocatefOPUCl One CC to Sri KV6numadhav, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 J 4 5 NVBiPSL W -:--=E=:-:....==-r!= b HIGH COURT DATED:1 110712025 \1" /.\ .- i' ,.. s.\\ li- O B IiEP 206 I)_.:^,- )',' ORDER CRP.No.1641 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION ( ,h q