The High Court · 2025

..RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF 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 stay the further proceedings dated 09.05.2025 in L A. No. 76 of 2025 O.S. No. 27 ot 2025 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge, R.R. District, at L.B. Nagar, pending disposal of the Civil lvlisc petition. I I lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the r ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High co, r may be preased to extend the interim order passed in c.M.A. No. 204 of 2o2( Daled-. 2}losl2o2s. until further orders. CIVIL MISCELLA NEOU S APPEAL NO: 205 Crl 2025 Appeal Under Section 43(1) of cpc against the orcr r dated 09-05-2025, in l.A. 77 of 2025. in o. S. No. 2z of 202s, on the fire of the , )ourt of the vacation Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. Between: Smt. Ethamukkala Santhi, W/o. Sri Ethamukkala Danr dar, Aged 61 years. Occ. H.omemaker, R/o. H. No 3, Doctois Colony, e,-', raid'Gaia;n;, (;;;;i *'- Hitls, Madhapur, Seri-Lingampall 1V1, nangi-nt,icy O . riCi _ soo 08i' ...PETI I ONER/DEFENDANT AND M/s. Nockel lndia Private Limited, Having its Registerec )ffice at H. No. 3-6/9, -Di-st;ici farsingi He-ights, Narsingi Viilage, Gan"dipet Vi"OrI'r anga iieOai Telangana State. Rep. by its Director, Lekkala Jeevan Siva Krishna,.S/o. Lekkala purushotht n Naidu, Aged about 32 years, Occ.Business. R:/o.Il. No. O-OIS, Nfaisingiir.l lnts, Narsinoi Viilaoe. under Narsingi Municrpatiry, Gandiper Vanoai, n"ing. h"ioi-oiliiti :' sroli 089 Telangana State. ...RES T ]NDENT/PLAINTIFF IANO: 2OF2 025 Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying' that in the ( ircumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High corr,: may be preased to stay the further proceedings dated 09.05.2025 in L A. No. / , of 2025 in OS No. 27 of 2025 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge, R.R. District. _. B. Nagar pending disposal of the CMA. lA NO: 3 oF 2025 Petition under Section j 5i CpC praying that in the r rcumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corrr may be pleased to extend the rnterim order passed in C.M.A. No. 2O5 of 2025 Daled. 2810512025, until further orders. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Raja Sripathi Rao rep. Sri Satish Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sujith Jaiswal The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT - THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUI\' AR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRT iHNA REDDY C.M.A.Nos.204 AND 205 OF 2025 COMMON DGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand k rmar ShaviJi) Since the issue involved in both these Cir: I Miscellaneous Appeals is one and the same, both these Civi Miscellaneous Appeals are being heard together and disposed c,t by way of this common judgment

2. These appeals are filed aggrieved by thr orders, dated

09.05.2025, passed in I.A.Nos.76 and77 of 2025 in r_.S.No.27 of 2O2S by the learned Vacation Civil Judge, Ranga R< dd1, District at L.B. Nagar.

3. Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned lenior Counsel representing Sri D. Satish Kumar, learned counsel or the appellant and Sri Sujith |aiswal, learned counsel for the respc,r dent.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the respolr( ent has filed the subject suit i.e. o.s.No.27 of 2025 against the ir rpellant seeking cancellation of registerecl sale Deecl, clated 03.02.2 )24. rn the saicl !-\ ^-*"1 2 AKS,J & VRKR,J C.M A.No.204 of 2025 & batch Suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.76 of 2025 seeking to grant ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from alienating or creating third par[z interest over the petition schedule property' The respondent also filed I.A.No.77 of 2025 seeking to grant ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent over the petition schedule property. The trial Court, rtide impugned orders' dated 09.05.2025, grante<l nd interim injunction in favour of the respondent restraining the appellant from alienating the petition schedule property, without assigning any reasons, except making a bald statement that ad interim injunction is granted in favour of the respondent. The ttial Court also directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the .possession of the petition schedule proPerty, without assigning any reasons'

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that the trial Court ought to have assigned reasons for granting ad interint injunction and status quo' Withottt assigning any reasons, the trial Court has granted ad interim iniunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo. Therefore, the impugned 3 AI(S,J & VRKR,J No.204 of 2025 & batch C.NI orders, dated 09.05.2025, are liable to be set aside ar c-l let the mafter be remitted to the trial Court for fresh considerati: r arrd to pass a detailed speaking order, after hearing both the partir s

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the .cspondent had contended that after taking into consideration thc locuments filed by the respondent, the frial Court was pleased tc grant ad inteim injunction in favour of the respondcnt and also or.r ered status quo. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in grantinp ,he said interim reliefs. It is alwavs open for the appellant to cor test the said ad inteirn injunction and status quo by filing her versi. r before the trial ( ( Court. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in tt e appeals 7 This Court, having considered the rival subrr issions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the conside,r ed view that the trial Court has granted status quo and nd interim i. unction without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the impugn,: I orders, dated

09.05.2025, are liable to be set aside 8 Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the orders, dated 09.05.2025, passed in I.A.Nos.76 and 77 of 20 2 j in O.S.No.27 of 11 .-+=T -IE.\ \, 4 AKS,J & VRKR,J C.M.A.No.204 of 2025 & batch 2025 by the Ieamed Vacation Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, are set aside, and the subject I.As. are remitted to the trial Court for considerafion afresh and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the subject I.As. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed' SD/-M. ANA KRISHNA INT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER To,

1. The Vacation Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar 2. One CC to Sri D. Satish Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sujith Jaiswal Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies VWSA p HIGH COURT DATED: 0210912025 COMMON JUDGMENT CMA.No.204 and 205 of 2025 o.J ')- r r'rill 1 I0 2 * E * ALLOWING BOTH APPEALS I\" v