Civil Rules of Practice (A.P.) — Rule 55 — Multiple interim reliefs in a single I.A. — Duty of court — Rule 55 mandates separate applications for each distinct relief; if several reliefs are combined, the court shall direct the applicant to confine to one unless the others are consequential, and to file separate applications for the rest. Where the trial court granted an omnibus interim injunction both (i) restraining alienation, and (ii) restraining dispossession/interference, in a single I.A., Held, appellate court relegated parties to trial court to apply Rule 55 and proceed; merits left open. Interim injunction — Maintainability vs. Merits — Appellate restraint — When maintainability turns on procedural non-compliance (Rule 55) and respondents are absent, appellate court may decline to pick which relief subsists and permit correction before the trial court; liberty reserved to assail the 07-02-2025 order on merits as well.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY-FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 93 of 2025

Between
Mallidi Sathireddy & Anr. … Appellants/Respondents/Defendants

And
Mallidi Srinivasa Reddy & Ors. … Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

Counsel: For Appellants — C. Subodh · For Respondents — —

HEADNOTES

Civil Rules of Practice (A.P.) — Rule 55 — Multiple interim reliefs in a single I.A. — Duty of court —
Rule 55 mandates separate applications for each distinct relief; if several reliefs are combined, the court shall direct the applicant to confine to one unless the others are consequential, and to file separate applications for the rest. Where the trial court granted an omnibus interim injunction both (i) restraining alienation, and (ii) restraining dispossession/interference, in a single I.A., Held, appellate court relegated parties to trial court to apply Rule 55 and proceed; merits left open.

Interim injunction — Maintainability vs. Merits — Appellate restraint —
When maintainability turns on procedural non-compliance (Rule 55) and respondents are absent, appellate court may decline to pick which relief subsists and permit correction before the trial court; liberty reserved to assail the 07-02-2025 order on merits as well.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 3 of 2025 (II Addl. District Judge, Amalapuram) for declaration of title and injunction against interference and alienation.

2. By I.A. No. 156 of 2025, they sought two interim injunctions in one application: (a) against alienation, and (b) against dispossession/interference (with an endorsement later reflecting the dispossession limb).

3. The trial court, by order 07.02.2025, granted both interim restraints.

4. Defendants filed the present CMA, invoking Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice and disputing merits.

COURT’S REASONING

• Rule 55 text & effect: When distinct reliefs are clubbed, the court should confine the applicant to one (unless consequential) and require separate I.As. for others.

• Application here: Injunctions against alienation and dispossession are separate and not necessarily consequential to each other; thus, the Rule 55 issue squarely arises.

• Appropriate course: In the absence of respondents and given the procedural posture, the appellate court will not unilaterally choose which injunction survives. Parties are relegated to the trial court to apply Rule 55, with liberty to both sides to advance their cases; appellants may also assail merits of the 07-02-2025 order there.

OPERATIVE CONCLUSION

• Appeal disposed of by relegating parties to the trial court to address Rule 55 compliance (separate I.As. or confinement to one relief) and to consider the merits of the interlocutory reliefs.

• No order as to costs.

• All pending miscellaneous petitions — Closed.

— R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
— MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.

Date: 21.02.2025