APHC010242612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1234/2025 Between:

1. M ATURU RAMA KRISHNA UMA SHANKAR, S/O. RAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 17-28, MAIN ROAD, BHATTIPROLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. P ENUGONDA NAGA RAJA KUMARI, W/O . PENUGONDA SRINIVASA RAO, AGED AOBUT 45 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 14- 61, PURAMVARI STREET, BHATTIPROLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT

2. P ENUGONDA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 17-28, PURAMVARI STREET, BHATTIPROLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in CMA No. 6 / 2022 dated 29.10.2024 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle, Guntur District, subsequently to uphold the Order and Decree passed in I.A No. 152 / 2022 in OS No. 62 / 2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay of Judgment and Decree passed in CMA No. 6 / 2022 dated 29.10.2024 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle, Guntur District pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. KRISHNA RAO PARITALA The Court made the following:

RESERVED ON 09.03.2026 PRONOUNCED ON 28.04.2026 UPLOADED ON 28.04.2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal vide CMA No. 6 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff while the respondents are the defendants in the suit vide O.S.No.62 of 2022.

3. The petitioner filed O.S.No.62 of 2022 for permanent injunction and in the said suit he filed petition vide I.A.No.152 of 2022 seeking the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents and their men restraining them in any way from making further construction on F, F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 and F7 on the plaint schedule land, pending disposal of the suit. The respondents resisted the relief by filing counter contending that they never trespassed into the site of the petitioner and in fact the petitioner got his house measured and stated that his place was secured and the petitioner who himself had encroached the site of the respondents on the northern side of their house at about three (03) feet width and 30 feet length, filed the suit with false averments and that the petition filed seeking two reliefs is not maintainable. The learned trial Judge, upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record, allowed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred CMA and the learned Appellate Judge allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal thereby setting aside the temporary injunction granted by the learned trial Judge. The order passed in the CMA has been challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri Naganjaneyulu Borra, learned counsel for petitioner/

plaintiff and Sri Krishna Rao Paritala, learned counsel for respondents/

defendants.

5. Sri Naganjaneyulu Borra, learned counsel for petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court and grounds of Civil Revision petition would contend that though the documents were not marked, the learned trial Judge made elaborate discussion of the contents of the documents in the order and ha