The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

7. K.Karunakar Slo. K.K.Elaiah, Aged about 76 yeatt, Occ: Government Employee, R/o. H.No.25-11-273, Diesel Colony HYderabad Raod, Kazipet, Wdrangal District. 8- Ch.Vindoa Wo. Veeraswamy, Aged 64 Years, C t c: Household' R/o H.No.25-11-273, Diesel Colony, Hyderabad Road, Kazipet, Warangal District.

9. Ega Sangeetha Wo. Mallesham, Aged 50 years, r)cc:Housewife, R/o. H.No.'l-8-235, Sai Nagar, Elalasamudram, Hanumakcr da. , ...Respondents/Respondents/Defr ndants No.2, 3 & 6 lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the t ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cotr I may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the order and decree passed itr I'A.No 1932 of 2025 rn A.S.No.1 ol 2025 dated 11.11.2025 on the file of court cf the Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda, in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI S.SURENDER REDOY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9:-- Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6: SRI MALLA RAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGII COTJRT FOR THE STATE OF TELAT\IGANA AT HYDERABAI) IIIE HONOT]RABLE SMT. JUSTICE REI\TUKA YARA CTVILMISCELLAIIEOUS APPEAL No.505 of 2O25 1 I I Between: THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER,2025 Avala Aga Reddy-died rep. by LRs (appellant Nos-2 and 3) and two others' AND ...Appellants Thouti Reddy Upender Reddy-died rep. by LRs- (respondent Nos'2 to 6) and 8 others' ...Respondents JT]DGMENT: Heard Sri S. Surrender Reddy, leamed counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Malla Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos'2 to 6' Perused the entire record.

2. This civil Miscellaneous Appeal is prefened aggrieved by the order and decree dated l1.l1.2025 passed in t.A-No. 1932 of 2025 in A'S'No'l of 2025 onthe file of the leamed Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda'

3. In short, the respondent Nos.l to 6 herein/plaintiffs have fited suit in o.s.No.159 of 1996 on the file of the t Additionat Senior civil Judge at Warangal, seeking declaration of titte, recovery of possession and injunction. During the pendency of the said suiq sralzs qao order was in RY,J cMA s05 2025 force vide order and decree dated 25.09.1996 in I.A.lr r.456 of 1996 in O.S.No.159 of 1996, wherein both the parties were dr:cted to maintain stafi$ quo over the existing physical structures in the ;chedule disputed vacant places during the pendency of the suit. Furthr: , both the parties were directed not to proceed with any construction :' change existing physical features until disputed landed boundaries are determined' The said order was in force till disposal of the suit. Theret.l .er, when the said suit was dismissed, respondent Nos.l to 6/plaintiffs I led an appeal in A.S.No.l of 2025 along with I.A.No.1932 of 2025 and i r the said I'A. the learned Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda pa;r ed the impugned order as follows: "28. Therefore, in my opini,on at this stage without ow() nto merits of the appeat it is desirable to grant temporary injuncti, n. Temporary injunction is granted till disposal. of the appeal r r the following conditions. ( I ) The petitioner shall not interfere with the posses; No. t of the plaint schedule mentioned property by tt respect of which the reliefofrecovery ofpossession i on of the itern : defendant in ; claimed. (2) The petitioner shall pay costs of the suit to the r complying with condition No.2 time granted till 28. :spondents fbr .2025.

29. In the result, the petition is allowed granting temp,r respect ofthe suit property by the petitioners in respect t 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties till dispr on the iollowing conditions: ary injunction in f item Nos-2 and ;al of the appeal (l) The petitioner shall not interfere with the possess No. I of the plaint schedule mentioned property by lt respect of w'hich the relief of recovery ofpossession i on ol' the item e defendant in ; claimed. \ 2 (2) The petitioner strall pay cosB of the suit to the respondents. For cornplying with condition No.2 time granted till2g.ll.Zo25.- cr'.ra sos lJzi

4. The said impugned order is patently erroneous on its face for the reason that the main suit in o.S.No.l59 of 1996 was filed for declaration of title and recovery of the possession in respect of item No.l and perpetual injunction with respect to item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule property by respondent Nos.l to 6 herein. The very factum of seeking relief of recovery of possession itself clearly shows that respondent Nos.l to 6/plaintiffs were never in possession item No. I of the suit schedule property. Therefore, granting of temporary injunction in favour of respondent Nos.l to 6 herein in respect of item Nos.2 and 3 subject to the ( condition that respondent Nos.l to 6 herein shall not interfere with item No. I of the suit schedule property is erroneous. Such a condition causes prejudice to respondent Nos.l to 6 herein, who sought retief of temporary t injunction only with respect to item Nos.2 and j of the suit schedule ( properties. It is unwarranted that a condition is imposed on respondent Nos.l to 6 herein when there was no such allegation about interference in item No.l by the appellants and other defendants. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 is liable to be set aside while granring stutus quo as per order dated 25.09.1996 in I.A.No.456 of 1996 in O.S.No. t 59 of 1996 3 i I I i: ,! i l

1. lr; i :i |] l; RY,J cMA 50s 2025

5. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is t[ sposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Lzr No.1932 of 2025 in A.S.No. 1 of 2025 directing both the parties in the said t ppeal to maintain status quo with respect to the existing physical struc ures and not to proceed with any construction in the suit schedule p operties pending disposal of appeal in A.S.No.l of 2025. Further, the teamed Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda may dispose of A.S...1o.1 of 2025 as expeditiously AS possible. There shall be no or,1 )r as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand clc sed. ST) - K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR / \--+ SECTION OFFICER /ITRUE EOPY" To, 1 . The Principal District Judge at Hunumakonda. 2 One CC to SRI S. SURENDER REDDY, Advocate [OF'l lCl 3. One CC to SRI S.MALLA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies NVB/SA I t 4 HIGH COURT DATED:2311212025 JUDMGNET CMA.No.505 of 2025 i,lE : i n '( , o C o i JAN 2026 t r) t rC DISPOSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEO JS APPEAL 2p l,lah