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:
-
Yerri Siva Prathapa Reddy and another.... Appellants / Defendants
AND
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Lower Appellate Court, by order dated 16.06.2025, granted ad-interim injunction ex parte, without issuing notice to the appellants.
-
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.
-
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.
