APHC010097692026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 109/2026 Between:

1. PINISETTI VENKATA KRISHNAMMA DORA, S/O LATE SAMUDRAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L. KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

2. VISWANADHA CHANDRAMMA,, W/O APPALAKONDA, AGED ABOUT

64 YEARS, R/O RELLI GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L. KOTA MANDAL VIZIANAGARAMDISTRICT.

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. GEDDA APPANNA DORA, S/O LATE GURUMURTHY, AGED 69 YEARS, R/O RELLI GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

2. GEDELA VENKATA SURYA RAMU, S/O LATE GURUMURTY, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O RELLI GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

3. BEHARA APPALA KONDA APPARAO, S/O LATE SANYASIPALNADU, AGED 67 YEARS,R/O JAMMA DEVIPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT (DIED) (PETITION AGAINST R3 IS ABATED)

4. BEHARA SANKARA RAO, S/O LATE SANYASIPATRUDU, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O JAMMA DEVIPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. PARDHA SARADHI A V Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 109/2026

J U D G M E N T:

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short CMA) has been preferred by the Applicants/Petitioners being aggrieved by the dismissal order and Decree dated 31.12.2025 in I.A.No.745 of 2025 in A.S.No. 94 of 2025 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.

For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court i.e., Appellants as Petitioners and Respondents as Respondents.

2. The Petitioners being appellants in A.S.No.94 of 2025 filed an application in I.A.No.745 of 2025 under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of Civil procedure Code (for short C.P.C) for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/appellants, over the schedule property, pending disposal of the appeal.

3. Brief averments of the application in I.A.No.745 of 2025 in A.S.No.94 of 2025 are that:- The petitioners being appellants preferred the above appeal against the decree and judgment dated 27.09.2025 passed in OS 478/2025, by the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The 2^nd appellant filed O.S.No.478 of 2005 and obtained interim injunction in respect of plaint schedule property and the same was in force till the disposal of suit. 1^st respondent is a medical practitioner at Visakhapatnam, having political and financial power. Taking advantage of the dismissal of the suit, the defendants with the active assistance of hired rowdy elements came to plaint schedule property along with three JCB's in the early morning on 06.10.2025 and damaged the structures situated in plaint schedule property in which the 2^nd appellant and others are carrying on business and they also tried to do away with their lives. The appellants and others tried to resist their high handed action but they could not resist due to the usage of JCBs and participation of hired rowdy elements, and as such they lodged reports with the Station House Officer, L. Kota Police Station and the same registered as a case in Cr. No.93 of 2025 and another report lodged by the ^2nd appellant is pending investigation.

4. The brief averments of counter filed by 1^st respondent are that - he denied the material averments of the petition by contending that immediately after the 'dismissal’ of the suit, the respondents resumed normal acts of ownership such as cleaning, leveling and constructing a compound wall on their own land. These acts are well within their rights as owners and do not constitute any unlawful interference with the appellants rights and moreover the judgment of the court was