Back
AP High Court: Party Must Stand on Own Case for , Not Opponent's Weakness
In a significant restatement of a foundational legal principle, the has set aside a single judge’s that granted relief solely because the opposing party’s counsel failed to answer a court query. A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta held that a litigant cannot piggyback on the adversary’s weakness – they must stand firmly on the strength of their own case. The judgment came in a filed by Kudithi Gurayya and Kudithi Srinivasa Rao, challenging an order that had been passed in favor of Akula Gowri Sudha and another private respondent in a pending land record dispute.
A Precarious Interim Win
The dispute arose under the . Two women had moved the High Court challenging an order of the Joint Collector that upheld a decision by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerning land records. During admission of their , the single judge reportedly asked the counsel for the respondents (the appellants here) to explain the grounds on which a could be issued. When the counsel could not furnish an answer, the judge granted an interim direction as prayed for, staying the impugned orders for six weeks.
That approach riled the respondents in the , who immediately appealed. They contended that the was mechanically granted without any consideration of the merits – solely because their lawyer stumbled on a legal query.
“Stand on Your Own Legs”
Writing for the bench, Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari quoted the time-honoured maxim that a . The judgment drew a sharp parallel: “Similarly, unless a case for grant of was made out, the could not be passed only on the failure of the respondents’ counsel to state the grounds on which could be issued.”
The court noted that the writ petitioners themselves had to satisfy the grounds for issuance of a and make out a case for interim protection. However, the impugned order showed “no consideration of the case of the writ petitioners or of the respondents, even .” The bench found that the single judge’s order, based solely on the opposing counsel’s inability to answer a courtroom query, was legally unsustainable.
The Core Legal Principle Affirmed
The division bench did not break new ground but reinforced a principle embedded in civil procedure: A party must succeed on the strength of its own pleadings and evidence, not on the defects or omissions of the opponent. This extends to interim applications as much as to final adjudication. The court observed:
“It would not be out of place to mention the settled principle of law that the . He has to stand on his own legs.”
Thus, granting an interim direction merely because the other side’s lawyer could not answer a court’s question was tantamount to allowing a party to win by default at the – a result that could never be endorsed.
Decision and Remand
Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The order dated passed in W.P.No.10221 of 2026 was set aside. The court clarified that the application for in the remains pending and must be considered afresh, in accordance with law and after giving both sides a full opportunity to be heard.
The ruling serves as a timely reminder that judicial discretion at the interim stage must still be anchored in a case, , and – not in the adversary’s momentary courtroom failings. The matter now returns to the single judge for a fresh look, on its own merits.
