Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
P. Vasantha @ Vasanthi @ Vasanthamma, W/o. Malyadri – Petitioner
Versus
P.C. Ramanaiah, S/o. Vengaiah – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 698 of 2025
Decided On : 07-05-2026
For the Petitioner: Pothamsetty Jaya Prakash
For the Respondent: V. Surendra Reddy
Interim protection granted during an appeal does not automatically survive a remand order; however, courts may exercise discretion to extend status quo to balance party interests and prevent multiplicity of proceedings, particularly in suits for specific performance.
Headnote:The petitioner approached the court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order in a suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of sale. The petitioner had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit property. While the trial court dismissed the application, the appellate court set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, but declined to extend the status quo order that was in place during the pendency of the appeal. The court examined whether the status quo order should be continued until the trial court's fresh adjudication. The court observed that while the granting or continuation of interim protection is a matter of judicial discretion and does not automatically survive a remand order, it is necessary in suits for specific performance to balance the interests of both parties and avoid multiplicity of proceedings resulting from the creation of third-party interests. The trial Court is directed to decide I.A.No.834 of 2019 in O.S.No.331 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gooty within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of hearing of the parties concerned. Till disposal of the said Interlocutory Application, an order of status quo shall be maintained.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the specific performance suit and the trajectory of the injunction application from trial court to appellate court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity of interim protection to prevent alienation of property versus the maintainability of the revision. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial discretion in extending interim protection post-remand to balance interests and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. direction for time-bound disposal of interlocutory applications with the maintenance of status quo until final decision. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
1. Assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3 of 2024 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, whereby the appeal was allowed and the order dated 28.03.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No.834 of 2019 in Original Suit No.331 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, was set aside, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed.
2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that: The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.331 of 2019. The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed the said suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of sale. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.834 of 2019, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant and his men from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the said application by order dated 28.03.2024. Aggrieved by said order, the plaintiff preferred CMA No.3 of 2024. The appellate Court allowed the said appeal setting aside the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gooty in I.A.No.834 of 2019 and remanded to the trial Court with a direction to consider the application afresh after deciding the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in accordance with law. Questioning the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed particularly insofar as the appellate Court declined to grant an order of status quo pending disposal of the interlocutory application.
3. Heard Sri Pothasetty Jaya Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application filed before the trial Court, contended that prior to filing the suit for Specific Performance, the petitioner/plaintiff issued a legal notice on 04.07.2019, to which the defendant issued a reply notice dated 08.11.2019. After receipt of legal notice, the defendant executed a partition deed, dated 05.11.2019 and subsequently executed a gift deed dated 11.11.2019 in favour of his daughter. He further submitted that apprehending creation of third party interest and with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.834 of 2019 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from further alienation of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. However, the said application came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred CMA No.3 of 2024, wherein the appellate Court granted an order of status quo, however, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. He further contended that though a specific request was made by the plaintiff for continuation of the status quo order, the appellate Court declined to extend the same. He further submitted that if the defendant creates any third party interest in the suit schedule property, it would not only prejudice the rights of the petitioner, but would also result in multifarious litigation. He further submitted that this Court by interim order dated
