Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Order 43 Rule 1, r/w Section 151 — Ad-interim injunction — Grant of ex parte injunction by Lower Appellate Court — Without notice — Improper exercise of discretion — Matter remitted for reconsideration — Directions for status quo. Where the Lower Appellate Court, pending appeal against a decree of dismissal of suit for injunction, granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from interfering with possession of plaintiffs, without notice and without limiting the duration of such order, the High Court held that such order was unsustainable.

APHC010381952025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 553 of 2025

Between:

1. Yerri Siva Prathapa Reddy and another.... Appellants / Defendants

AND

1. Bheemacherla Bhaskar Reddy and others... Respondents / Plaintiffs

Counsel for the Appellants: Smt. Kodati Ramya Krishna
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V. Nitesh

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Order 43 Rule 1, r/w Section 151 — Ad-interim injunction — Grant of ex parte injunction by Lower Appellate Court — Without notice — Improper exercise of discretion — Matter remitted for reconsideration — Directions for status quo.

Where the Lower Appellate Court, pending appeal against a decree of dismissal of suit for injunction, granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from interfering with possession of plaintiffs, without notice and without limiting the duration of such order, the High Court held that such order was unsustainable.

Held:
Order passed without hearing the opposite party and without limiting its duration amounts to improper exercise of jurisdiction. Matter remitted to the Lower Appellate Court for fresh determination on merits after hearing both sides. Parties directed to maintain status quo till disposal.

CITATION STYLE

Yerri Siva Prathapa Reddy & Anr. v. Bheemacherla Bhaskar Reddy & Anr.,
C.M.A. No. 553 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025 (A.P. H.C.) — per Challa Gunaranjan, J.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 4 of 2019 before the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants (present appellants) from interfering with their possession of the suit schedule property.

2. The suit was contested and dismissed by judgment and decree dated 26.03.2025, the Trial Court holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish possession, and that declaration of title was necessary to resolve the dispute.

3. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed A.S. No. 51 of 2025 before the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, and pending appeal, they filed I.A. No. 409 of 2025 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, seeking ad-interim injunction.

4. The Lower Appellate Court, by order dated 16.06.2025, granted ad-interim injunction ex parte, without issuing notice to the appellants.

5. The defendants (present appellants) challenged the said order before the High Court under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, by filing the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 553 of 2025.

6. On 06.08.2025, this Court had passed an interim order suspending the injunction, which was later extended.

CONTENTIONS

Appellants’ submissions:

• The suit having been dismissed after full trial, there was no injunction in force during the suit, and hence the appellate court erred in granting a fresh injunction contrary to findings of the trial court.

• The plaintiffs were found not in possession, and such finding could not be overridden ex parte.

• The appellate court’s action violated principles of natural justice as the order was passed without notice and without time limitation.

Respondents’ submissions:

• Appeal proceedings are continuation of the original suit; hence interim relief can be granted to protect subject matter.

• Findings of trial court can be reappreciated in appeal.

• Denial of interim injunction would defeat purpose of appeal.

• The appellants were trying to disturb possession by erecting structures under cover of suspension orders.

JUDGMENT

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan)

The Hon’ble Judge observed:

“On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the same was passed without hearing the respondents in the said I.A. However, the Lower Appellate Court, instead of confining the interim order for a specific period, has granted injunction pending disposal of the appeal. This approach is unjustified.”

The Court noted that since the appellants had already filed a counter affidavit opposing the injunction, the proper course would be to remit the matter for reconsideration after hearing both sides.

The Court also took note of apprehensions from both sides that attempts were being made to take possession during pendency of appeal, and therefore, directed both parties to maintain status quo till fresh disposal by the lower appellate court.

OPERATIVE CONCLUSION

“Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.409 of 2025 in A.S.No.51 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Lower Appellate Court for reconsideration.

The Lower Appellate Court shall consider I.A.No.409 of 2025 in A.S.No.51 of 2025 and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Till such time, the parties shall maintain status quo as observed above.

With the above observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.”

— Challa Gunaranjan, J.
Date: 15.10.2025

ANALYSIS 

This judgment underscores the judicial restraint expected in granting ex parte interim injunctions, particularly in appellate proceedings arising from dismissed suits.

The Hon’ble Court has correctly emphasized that:

• Interim injunctions, especially those granted ex parte, must be time-bound and subject to hearing the opposite party;

• The continuation of litigation through an appeal does not automatically justify interim relief overriding trial court findings; and

• Courts must adhere to principles of natural justice and proportionality while exercising discretion under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

FINAL DISPOSITION

• Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 553 of 2025 — Allowed.

• Impugned order (I.A. No.409 of 2025 in A.S. No.51 of 2025) — Set aside.

• Matter remitted for reconsideration on merits within three months.

• Status quo — To be maintained by both parties.

• No order as to costs.

• All pending miscellaneous petitions — Closed.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) & (iii) — Ex parte decree of divorce — Application to set aside ex parte decree — Delay of 94 days — Condonation of delay — Liberal approach in matrimonial cases — Principles reiterated. Where the wife suffered serious burn injuries and health issues and failed to contest the H.M.O.P., resulting in an ex parte decree of divorce, and she filed an application to set aside the decree along with one seeking condonation of delay of 94 days, the trial court dismissed both applications. The High Court, on appeal, held that in matrimonial matters, the Court should adopt a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach when the delay is short and supported by bona fide reasons, particularly where medical evidence is subsequently produced to substantiate illness.

APHC010290522005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 555 of 2025

Between:
Donthireddy Pravallika, 
... Appellant / Respondent

AND

Donthireddy Veera Reddy, 
... Respondent / Petitioner

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Burla Siva Rama Krishna
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. K.H.V. Siva Kumar

JUDGMENT

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

HEADNOTES

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) & (iii) — Ex parte decree of divorce — Application to set aside ex parte decree — Delay of 94 days — Condonation of delay — Liberal approach in matrimonial cases — Principles reiterated.

Where the wife suffered serious burn injuries and health issues and failed to contest the H.M.O.P., resulting in an ex parte decree of divorce, and she filed an application to set aside the decree along with one seeking condonation of delay of 94 days, the trial court dismissed both applications. The High Court, on appeal, held that in matrimonial matters, the Court should adopt a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach when the delay is short and supported by bona fide reasons, particularly where medical evidence is subsequently produced to substantiate illness.

Held:
Considering the short delay and medical reasons, the order of the trial court dismissing the application was unsustainable. Delay of 94 days condoned; ex parte decree set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. The respondent-husband filed H.M.O.P. No.117 of 2023 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopeta, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and mental disorder.

2. The wife, Donthireddy Pravallika, did not appear before the trial court, allegedly due to serious health issues and burn injuries, leading to an ex parte decree of divorce on 18.08.2023.

3. She subsequently filed I.A. No. 24 of 2024 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, accompanied by I.A. No. 23 of 2024 to condone the delay of 94 days in filing the application.

4. The trial court dismissed both applications by common order dated 25.04.2025, holding that the petitioner failed to file any medical records or convincing evidence along with the applications to explain the delay.

5. Aggrieved, she filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 555 of 2025 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

COURT’S REASONING

• The Division Bench heard Mr. Burla Siva Rama Krishna for the appellant-wife and Mr. K.H.V. Siva Kumar for the respondent-husband.

• The appellant contended that the delay occurred solely due to serious illness and burn injuries, which prevented her from approaching counsel earlier. Although such material was not filed before the trial court, the same was now placed on record in the appeal.

• The respondent’s counsel opposed the appeal, supporting the trial court’s view that no sufficient cause was established before the lower court.

• Upon examining the record, the Bench noted that while the appellant had indeed failed to contest the original proceedings properly, the new material placed before the appellate court established her bona fide incapacity during the relevant period.

• The Court emphasized that in matrimonial cases, courts must lean towards substantial justice and adopt a pragmatic approach, especially when the delay is short and the rights of the parties are personal in nature, not commercial.

• The Bench further observed that no counter-affidavit was filed by the husband disputing the medical material placed on record in appeal.

CONCLUSION / OPERATIVE ORDER

“As it is an issue pertaining to divorce and the delay is only 94 days, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court should have adopted a pragmatic approach rather than a pedantic one in the interest of parties.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The order in I.A. No.24 of 2024 in H.M.O.P. No.117 of 2023 is set aside, and the said I.A. stands allowed.
No order as to costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed.”

— Ninala Jayasurya, J.
— Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J.
Date: 22.09.2025

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

This judgment reinforces a liberal and equitable approach in matrimonial litigation, aligning with consistent precedents of the Supreme Court and High Courts holding that technicalities should not defeat substantive justice between spouses.

By condoning a brief delay of 94 days, the Court prioritized conciliation and adjudication on merits over strict procedural compliance. The Bench notably underscored that in such personal disputes, a pragmatic approach must prevail over a pedantic one, reflecting the judicial philosophy in family law where human considerations outweigh procedural lapses.

FINAL DISPOSITION

• Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 555 of 2025 — Allowed.

• Order in I.A. No.24 of 2024 in H.M.O.P. No.117 of 2023 — Set aside.

• Delay of 94 days — Condoned.

• Ex parte decree of divorce — Set aside.

• No order as to costs.

• All pending miscellaneous petitions — Closed.

LEGAL PROFESSION — Duty of candour and integrity — Responsibility of counsel — Filing of false affidavit — Professional standards reiterated.

A.S. No. 223 of 2025 — Decided on: 31 July 2025
Bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ.
Counsel: Ms. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba, for Appellants — Mr. Siva Bhami Reddy S., for Respondent.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Ss. 96 & Order 41 Rule 1 — Appeal against ex parte decree — Application for condonation of delay of 950 days — Rejection — Suppression of material facts — Abuse of process of Court.

Where the defendants had in fact appeared before the Trial Court through counsel, filed vakalatnama, were granted time to file written statement but failed to do so, and were set ex parte — held, plea that no summons were served and that decree was passed without knowledge of suit proceedings, is false and contrary to record.

The cause shown for condonation of delay held not sufficient — delay of 950 days not condoned — appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

Filing of affidavit containing incorrect averments amounting to suppression of material facts and attempt to mislead Court — Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on appellants.

LEGAL PROFESSION — Duty of candour and integrity — Responsibility of counsel — Filing of false affidavit — Professional standards reiterated.

Court observed that counsel must verify correctness of facts before drafting affidavit, especially when record of Trial Court clearly indicated appearance and service. While no action taken against counsel, Court admonished need for due diligence and adherence to professional integrity.

Cited:

• Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v. Addl. Commr. (Admn.), Bareilly Division, Bareilly (2010) 4 SCC 728.

• Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 398.

• Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Ltd. (2016) 3 SCC 70.

• Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi (2011) 5 SCC 496.

• J.S. Jadhav v. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf (1993) 2 SCC 562.

• M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand (1984 Supp SCC 571).

• K. Anjinappa v. K.C. Krishna Reddy (2022) 17 SCC 625.

• O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2011) 6 SCC 86.

CASE SUMMARY

Facts:
The appellants (defendants in O.S. No. 11 of 2018, V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram) filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC with I.A. No. 1 of 2025 for condonation of delay of 950 days. They contended that no summons were served and that they became aware of the ex parte decree only during execution (E.P. No. 145 of 2022, Kerala).

Proceedings:
On 26-06-2025, the Division Bench called for a report on service of summons. The Trial Court’s report (30-06-2025) revealed that:

• Summons by post returned as “addressee left”.

• Vakalat filed on 26-09-2018 by advocates Sri N. Anoop Kumar and Smt. K. Andal for defendants 1 & 2.

• Time granted till 16-04-2019 for written statement.

• Defendants failed to file written statement and were set ex parte.

Held:
→ The assertion in the affidavit that summons were not served was false and contrary to the record.
→ The explanation offered later in the affidavit dated 03-07-2025 (that counsel was engaged by a “well-wisher” without knowledge) was disbelieved as an afterthought.
→ The appellants suppressed material facts and abused process of Court.

Order:

• I.A. No. 1 of 2025 for condonation of delay rejected.

• Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

• Notice issued for suppression of facts.

• On 31-07-2025, Court found explanation unsatisfactory and imposed costs of ₹50,000/- payable to the A.P. State High Court Legal Services Committee within one month.

• Counsel’s affidavit accepted with cautionary observation to maintain professional verification standards.

RATIO DECIDENDI (KEY PRINCIPLES)

1. A party seeking equitable relief must approach Court with clean hands and disclose all material facts — suppression or concealment amounts to abuse of judicial process.
   (Oswal Fats, Kishore Samrite, Sciemed Overseas applied.)

2. Affidavit containing false averments or misleading statements constitutes abuse of process — even without contempt proceedings, Court may impose punitive costs.

3. Counsel’s duty: to verify factual instructions from record before filing pleadings or affidavits; professional integrity and diligence are the cornerstone of advocacy.
   (J.S. Jadhav; M. Veerabhadra Rao; O.P. Sharma; K. Anjinappa applied.)

4. Condonation of delay — where false cause shown and no bona fide explanation, Court cannot condone long delay merely on equity; limitation cannot be defeated by suppression.

DISPOSITION

I.A. No. 1 of 2025 rejected. Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation. Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on appellants, payable to A.P. State High Court Legal Services Committee within one month.

Analysis :

I. Factual Background

The appellants, A.S. Traders and its proprietor A. Safar AN, were the defendants in O.S. No. 11 of 2018 filed by MGR Rice Industries, Polamuru, before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
The suit was for recovery of money based on an alleged business transaction supported by a ledger account.

The Trial Court decreed the suit ex parte on 11.04.2022, holding that despite service of summons, defendants did not appear or contest.

The appellants, nearly 950 days after the decree, preferred an appeal under Section 96 CPC read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC, accompanied by I.A. No. 1 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay.

II. Procedural Trajectory Before the High Court

1. Contention in I.A. No. 1 of 2025:
   The appellants averred that no summons were served, and they became aware of the decree only during execution proceedings (E.P. No. 145/2022) in Kerala.

2. Court’s Initial Direction (26.06.2025):
   The Division Bench, noting the assertion of non-service, called for a factual report from the Trial Court regarding service of summons.

3. Trial Court’s Report (30.06.2025):
   It revealed:

   • Summons by post returned “addressee left.”

   • Vakalatnama filed on 26.09.2018 by advocates Sri N. Anoop Kumar and Smt. K. Andal for defendants 1 & 2.

   • Time for written statement extended till 16.04.2019.

   • Defendants failed to file written statement → set ex parte.

   This directly contradicted the appellants’ assertion of ignorance.

4. High Court Order (03.07.2025):
   Held that the ground of “no service” was false, rejected the plea of want of jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, and dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2025.
   The appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
   However, noticing deliberate suppression, the Court issued show-cause notice to appellants for misleading the Court.

5. Affidavit Filed by 2nd Appellant:
   The appellant claimed ignorance of the vakalat filed in 2018, asserting that it was done by a “well-wisher.” He tendered an unconditional apology.

6. Affidavit of Counsel (Ms. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba):
   Stated that she drafted the affidavit based on her clients’ instructions and the trial court judgment, particularly para 4 (“despite receipt of summons…”), and that she acted bona fide.

7. Final Order (31.07.2025):

   • The Bench rejected the explanation of the appellants, finding it false and an afterthought.

   • Found suppression of material facts and abuse of process.

   • Imposed costs of ₹50,000/- payable to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee.

   • Cautioned the counsel but refrained from proceeding against her personally.

III. Issues Considered

1. Whether the appellants had shown “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 950 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

2. Whether the claim of non-service of summons and want of knowledge of the suit proceedings was true?

3. Whether filing a false affidavit amounts to abuse of process and warrants penal consequences?

4. What is the professional responsibility of an advocate in drafting pleadings and affidavits based on client instructions?

IV. Findings & Judicial Reasoning

1. False Affidavit and Suppression of Facts

The Bench observed that the record conclusively proved service and appearance through counsel in the trial court. The appellants’ affidavit claiming “no summons served” was contrary to record.

“Consequently, the ground as stated for condonation of delay that the summons were not served is not correct and is contrary to the record.” (para 9)

Hence, the plea of ignorance was rejected outright as false and misleading.

2. Jurisdictional Objection

The appellants argued that the dispute, being commercial in nature, should have been filed before a Commercial Court.
The Bench noted that the record itself showed the file was transferred to the Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam, and returned to the Rajamahendravaram Court since the transaction lacked the nature of a legal agreement attracting the Commercial Courts Act.
Hence, jurisdictional challenge was meritless.

3. Abuse of Process of Court

The Court found the appellants’ conduct amounted to abuse of the process of Court, citing classic authorities:

• Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. — duty of full disclosure.

• Kishore Samrite — litigant cannot “play hide and seek” with the court.

• Sciemed Overseas & Muthu Karuppan — filing false affidavits pollutes the stream of justice.

“The appellants have abused the process of the Court and have not approached this Court with clean hands.”

Accordingly, the Bench invoked its inherent powers to impose exemplary costs (₹50,000) to deter misuse.

4. Professional Conduct of Counsel

The Bench distinguished between client suppression and counsel’s ethical duty.
Though the counsel had acted on instructions, the Court held she ought to have verified the record before drafting the affidavit.

By invoking J.S. Jadhav v. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf, M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand, and O.P. Sharma v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Bench emphasized the moral integrity, duty of candour, and due diligence expected of advocates.

“Given these virtues, other qualifications will follow of their own account. This is the reason why legal profession is regarded as a noble one.”

The Court, however, stopped short of disciplinary directions, merely recording a cautionary observation.

V. Legal Analysis

A. Condonation of Delay — Discretion not a Right

The case reaffirms that Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires bona fide explanation.
A false cause or suppression disentitles the applicant from equitable relief.
Here, the delay was not only unexplained but justified through fabricated narrative, hence the discretionary relief was rightly denied.

B. Clean Hands Doctrine

The Bench reiterated the “clean hands” principle, rooted in equity and consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.
A litigant who misleads or conceals material facts forfeits his right to be heard on merits.

C. Duty of Candour in Affidavits

An affidavit is a solemn statement on oath. Filing an affidavit contrary to record constitutes perjury or contempt, apart from inviting punitive costs.
The Bench’s reliance on Sciemed Overseas underscores that such conduct must be “curbed with a strong hand.”

D. Advocate’s Professional Obligation

The Court’s extensive quotation from Sharaswood (via J.S. Jadhav) elevates the discussion beyond case-specific conduct to a moral reflection on legal ethics.
It reiterates that:

• Advocacy is a calling, not a trade.

• The lawyer’s integrity is indispensable to justice.

• Verification of facts is part of professional diligence.

Thus, while showing leniency to counsel, the Court reaffirmed the high ethical threshold of the profession.

VI. Significance of the Judgment

1. Doctrinal Reinforcement:
   The decision strengthens the jurisprudence on false affidavits, suppression of facts, and abuse of process — extending the Supreme Court’s reasoning to appellate procedural contexts.

2. Judicial Accountability of Litigants:
   The Court directly confronted false pleading, imposing monetary costs rather than merely dismissing the appeal — signalling deterrence.

3. Ethical Guidance for Advocates:
   By reproducing Sharaswood’s dictum and apex court precedents, the Bench converted the judgment into a teaching document on legal ethics.

4. Procedural Purity:
   It underscores that litigation integrity is foundational — procedural delay cannot mask dishonesty.

VII. Critical Evaluation

From a jurisprudential standpoint, this judgment is both stern and instructive.

• It blends procedural discipline (limitation law) with moral accountability (truthfulness in pleadings).

• The ₹50,000 cost is proportionate — punitive yet non-vindictive.

• The Bench correctly distinguished between misleading client conduct and counsel’s limited culpability, balancing justice with fairness.

However, one could argue that the Court could have directed initiation of perjury proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., given the finding of deliberate suppression. Yet, the Bench’s approach of closure upon apology reflects judicial restraint and pragmatism.

VIII. Conclusion

The judgment in A.S. Traders v. MGR Rice Industries (A.S. No. 223/2025) stands as a cogent reaffirmation of judicial intolerance toward dishonesty in pleadings and a restatement of the ethical obligations of advocates.

It teaches that:

• “Equity aids the vigilant, not the fraudulent.”

• “Candour is not optional in advocacy; it is the lifeblood of justice.”

Accordingly, the High Court’s order — dismissing the appeal, refusing condonation, and imposing costs — is not merely a procedural ruling, but a juridical message on the sanctity of truth in litigation.

Or. VII R. 11(a), (d) — Rejection of plaint at pre-registration stage — Held, where the plaint pleads detailed cause of action and limitation based on date of knowledge, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact; rejection at threshold on “barred by limitation/no cause of action” is impermissible. Meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole required; trial court erred by imputing knowledge merely from registration of documents. [Paras 25–33, 46–47] Limitation Act, 1963 — Arts. 58 & 65 — Declaration with consequential possession — When declaration of title is accompanied by recovery of possession based on title, Art. 65 (12 years from adverse possession) governs; declaration becomes ancillary. N. Thajudeen v. TN Khadi applied. [Paras 18–24] Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Ss. 31 & 34 — Non-executant’s remedy — Non-executant may seek declaration that deed is void/not binding without cancellation under S.31. Hussain Ahmed Choudhury referred. [Para 24] CPC, 1908 — Or. II R. 2; res judicata — Effect of earlier O.S. No.372/2015, and whether second suit barred, are trial issues; cannot ground Or. VII R. 11 rejection. [Paras 37–38] A.P. Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1956 — Ss. 63, 64 — On setting aside rejection and directing receipt of plaint, refund of full court fee on memo of appeal directed; refund to appellants’ bank account on furnishing particulars. Veluru Prabhavathi followed. [Paras 39–45, 47(iii)-(iv)]

APHC010402112025 — Appeal Suit No. 409 of 2025
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari & Hon’ble Sri Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
Date: 08-10-2025
Parties: Gummadi Usha Rani & Gutta Sunitha — Appellants/Petitioners
vs. Guduru Venkateswara Rao & Ors. — Respondents
Provision: “Appeal under Section 96 R/w Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C, against the order dated 06-05-2025 under G.L.No.1148 dated 07-03-2025 passed in O.S. No. ___ of 2025 on the file of the Hon’ble II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District.”

Headnotes (court-style)

CPC, 1908 — Or. VII R. 11(a), (d) — Rejection of plaint at pre-registration stage — Held, where the plaint pleads detailed cause of action and limitation based on date of knowledge, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact; rejection at threshold on “barred by limitation/no cause of action” is impermissible. Meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole required; trial court erred by imputing knowledge merely from registration of documents. [Paras 25–33, 46–47]

Limitation Act, 1963 — Arts. 58 & 65 — Declaration with consequential possession — When declaration of title is accompanied by recovery of possession based on title, Art. 65 (12 years from adverse possession) governs; declaration becomes ancillary. N. Thajudeen v. TN Khadi applied. [Paras 18–24]

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Ss. 31 & 34 — Non-executant’s remedy — Non-executant may seek declaration that deed is void/not binding without cancellation under S.31. Hussain Ahmed Choudhury referred. [Para 24]

CPC, 1908 — Or. II R. 2; res judicata — Effect of earlier O.S. No.372/2015, and whether second suit barred, are trial issues; cannot ground Or. VII R. 11 rejection. [Paras 37–38]

A.P. Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1956 — Ss. 63, 64 — On setting aside rejection and directing receipt of plaint, refund of full court fee on memo of appeal directed; refund to appellants’ bank account on furnishing particulars. Veluru Prabhavathi followed. [Paras 39–45, 47(iii)-(iv)]

Facts of the Case (drawn from the judgment record)

• Plaintiffs filed a comprehensive suit seeking: (i) declaration of title over Plaint ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties by holding multiple registered sale deeds/GPA transactions (1996–2011) in favour of various defendants null and void / not binding; (ii) recovery of possession (B-schedule from D5–D7); and (iii) permanent injunctions restraining alienation/interference (against D5–D13).

• Office objection (05-03-2025): “How the suit is within limitation? Explain.”

• Representation (07-03-2025): Plaintiffs asserted limitation on date of knowledge, contending limitation is mixed law & fact; for possession, Arts. 64/65 outer limit applies.

• Trial Court (II ADJ, Vijayawada): After hearing, by order 06-05-2025, rejected the plaint at registration stage under Or. VII R. 11, holding: registration gives notice to the world; plaintiffs had knowledge; suit barred by limitation and disclosed no cause of action; also adverted to dismissal of O.S. 372/2015.

• Plaintiffs first filed C.R.P. No.1440/2025; withdrawn with liberty, since rejection is a decree (S.2(2) CPC); hence A.S. No.409/2025.

Conclusion (operative result)

• Appeal Allowed.

• Order dated 06-05-2025 rejecting the plaint set aside.

• Direction: Trial court shall receive the plaint and register the suit.

• Refund: Full court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal to be refunded to the appellants (to the bank account of any one appellant upon furnishing details).

• Costs: No order as to costs.

• Compliance: Registrar (Judicial) to ensure due compliance.

Analysis of the Judgment

1. Threshold bar under Or. VII R. 11 not made out:
   The Division Bench stresses the settled test—only plaint averments count at this stage; the plaint must be read meaningfully as a whole. Here, the plaint pleads date-of-knowledge and a continuing chain of causes of action; therefore, limitation turns on disputed facts (knowledge/adversity/possession), making it a mixed question unsuitable for summary rejection.

2. Limitation framework correctly re-stated:
   The Court aligns with Thajudeen: where declaration + possession is sought based on title, the real driver is Art. 65 (12 years from when possession becomes adverse). Art. 58 cannot be applied in isolation to defeat a title-based possession claim at the threshold.

3. Registration ≠ conclusive knowledge at this stage:
   While registration is constructive notice “to the world,” the Bench treats that presumption as rebuttable; given the plaint’s specific pleading of actual discovery (e.g., cross-examination in 2021, inquiry in 2022, occupation in 2023), the inference of time-bar cannot be drawn without evidence.

4. Prior litigation no bar at filing stage:
   Whether O.S. 372/2015 and its dismissal trigger res judicata or Or. II R. 2 is kept open; these raise fact-intensive issues (identity of cause of action, omission/leave, intentional relinquishment) to be tested after registration, not via Or. VII R. 11.

5. Relief architecture for non-executant deeds:
   By invoking Hussain Ahmed Choudhury, the Court signals that a non-executant need not seek cancellation (S.31); a declaration of non-binding/void suffices—undercutting the trial court’s approach that stiffer relief (and tighter limitation) applied.

6. Court-fee refund as consequential relief:
   Following Ss. 63–64 A.P. Act and Veluru Prabhavathi, setting aside a wrongful rejection justifies refund of appeal court-fee, with a practical direction on remittance—useful for registry compliance.

Unregistered post-decree agreements are legally ineffective and do not confer any proprietary right to obstruct execution proceedings.”

Bandaru Suresh Babu v. Vadlamuri Venkateswara Rao & another

A.S. No. 500 of 2025 — Judgment dated 26 September 2025

Before: Ravi Nath Tilhari & Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ.

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati

HEAD NOTES

1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXI Rule 58 — 

Claim Petition — Maintainability —

Claim petition filed by third party under O.21 R.58 CPC 

based on unregistered non-possessory agreement of sale executed after decree.

Held, such an agreement does not create any right, title or interest 

in the property and cannot form the basis for resisting execution of a decree.

Execution Court justified in rejecting claim petition in limine.

Held: “Unregistered post-decree agreements are legally ineffective 

and do not confer any proprietary right to obstruct execution proceedings.”

2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 54 — Nature of Agreement of Sale —

An agreement of sale, even if genuine, is merely a contract to sell; 

it does not transfer ownership.

When such agreement is unregistered and executed after the decree, 

it is wholly ineffective to affect the rights of decree holder.

3. Execution — Collusive Decree — Allegation —

A bare allegation of collusion between decree holder and judgment debtor 

without supporting material does not invalidate the decree

 nor confer locus standi on a third party lacking any legal interest in the property.

4. Practice and Procedure — Summary Rejection of Non-Maintainable Claims —

Execution Court is competent to reject a claim petition 

without numbering when, on the face of it, the petition discloses 

no legally cognizable right or interest.

Such summary rejection is proper and does not offend principles of natural justice.

Result:

Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Liberty granted to appellant to pursue any other independent civil remedy against the judgment debtor.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Original Suit:

The 1st respondent (plaintiff) filed O.S. No. 42 of 2021 

in the Court of the XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, 

against the 2nd respondent (defendant) for recovery of money based on two promissory notes.

The suit was decreed ex parte on 23 July 2022.

Execution Proceedings:

The decree holder initiated E.P. No. 44 of 2023 for execution of the decree.

Third-Party Claim:

The appellant, Bandaru Suresh Babu, a stranger to the decree, 

filed an E.A. (unnumbered, G.L. No. 3138 dated 06.08.2025) 

under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, asserting that he had purchased the E.P. schedule property

 from the judgment debtor through an unregistered 

non-possessory agreement of sale dated 03.10.2022.

He claimed to have paid ₹75,00,000 on 01.10.2022 and 

₹10,00,000 on 12.01.2023 by RTGS.

Alleged that the decree between the 1st and 2nd respondents was collusive.

Order of Execution Court (14.08.2025):

The XII Additional District Judge rejected the claim petition at the threshold, 

holding that:

The agreement was subsequent to decree;

It was unregistered and therefore conferred no title or interest;

Claim petition not maintainable and hence not numbered.

Appeal Suit (A.S. No. 500 of 2025):

Appellant challenged the rejection before the High Court under Section 96 CPC.

The appeal was heard and dismissed on 26.09.2025.

 HELD BY THE HIGH COURT

Per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. (for the Bench):

The decree in O.S. No. 42 of 2021 was passed on 23.07.2022; 

the alleged agreement of sale was dated 03.10.2022 — i.e., after the decree.

→ The appellant had no subsisting interest at the time of decree or attachment.

Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 

an agreement of sale does not itself create any ownership or 

transfer of interest in the property; it is only a promise to transfer.

Since the agreement was unregistered and post-decree, 

it was wholly ineffective to confer any title or interest 

enabling the appellant to resist execution proceedings.

The Execution Court’s summary rejection of such claim was proper.

It need not have numbered or entertained a petition that, 

on its face, disclosed no maintainable right.

“Such application, on the face of it, did not require any registration of number. 

The learned Execution Court has rightly rejected the same.”

The allegation of collusion between decree holder and judgment debtor 

was unsupported by evidence and therefore rejected.

The Court observed that although the claim petition was unsustainable,

 the appellant was at liberty to pursue any other civil remedy,

 such as a separate suit against the judgment debtor 

for enforcement of the alleged contract or refund of money.

Result:

Appeal dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any, stood closed.

CASE ANALYSIS

Legal Principles Reaffirmed

Order XXI Rule 58 CPC:

A claim petition is maintainable only

 if the claimant demonstrates a legal interest in the property as on the date of attachment.

Post-decree or post-attachment transactions are irrelevant.

Section 54 T.P. Act:

An agreement of sale does not convey title. 

Registration is mandatory for conveyance of immovable property.

Execution Court’s Powers:

Execution Courts possess authority to summarily reject claim petitions that are facially untenable.

This does not constitute denial of opportunity or natural justice.

Collusion Allegations:

Allegations must be substantiated; otherwise, they do not affect the decree’s enforceability.

Remedy of Appellant:

Though he cannot interfere with execution, 

he retains the right to institute a separate civil suit 

for enforcement of his contractual rights.

Conclusion

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.S. No. 500 of 2025 conclusively held that:

“An unregistered non-possessory agreement of sale executed 

after the date of decree cannot create any right, title or interest 

in favour of a third party to resist execution. Such a claim petition is not maintainable, 

and its rejection by the Execution Court is proper.”

Appeal dismissed — No costs — Liberty reserved to file separate suit if so advised.