The Court made the following:

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 2nd 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. 1st 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 2nd 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 1st 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 intimated to this 2nd appellant along with other temporary shop keepers and they have voluntarily left from the suit schedule property and handed over to the original owners of the defendants but, appellants No.1 and 2 disobeyed the court judgment and tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the original owners by showing dangerous weapons of sharp edged knifes and manhandling over the original owners staff and tried to obstruct the owners work and moreover appellants No.1 and 2 tactfully drafted a report by mentioning some of the shop keepers in that area by creating story. The present appeal and the petition for injunction and stay are filed only to harass and obstruct the respondents and preferring an appeal itself does not automatically confer any right to injunction. Hence, there is no need for interim injunction as the appellants have no ownership documents and are not in possession and cannot having lawful claim, whereas the respondents have clear title and possession evidenced by registered sale deeds, property tax receipts and photos of the compound wall and occupation and hence requested to dismiss the appeal.

5. No oral evidence adduced on either side. The petitioners got marked Ex.P.1 – copy of caveat petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of