The Court made the following order:

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 27-01-2026 dismissing C.M.A No.14 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Ananthapuram confirming the order dated 16-09-2025 in I.A.No.379 of 2025 in O.S.No.1063 of 2025 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ananthapuram directing issuance of notice to the respondent / defendant.

02. The revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.1063 of 2025 against the respondents seeking permanent injunction. Along with the suit, an interlocutory application I.A.No.379 of 2025 was filed under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction. On 16.09.2025, the trial Court directed issuance of notice to the respondents Nos.1 and 2. As no ad-interim injunction was granted, the aggrieved plaintiff preferred C.M.A.No.14 of 2025 before the IV-Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu. The appeal was dismissed on 27.01.2026 holding that issuance of notice is not an appealable order.

03. Then, this revision petition was filed challenging the order in C.M.A.No.14 of 2025. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that an appropriate direction may be given to the trial Court for early disposal of I.A.No.379 of 2025, since it is pending from its inception. He referred to decisions of this High Court in Shaik Sanaulla Vs. D.Suresh Kumar , 2015 (4) ALT 813 (S.B.) in which it was held in paragraph No.4 as follows:

“4.The above referred provision enables the Court to grant temporary injunction even without issuing notice to the respondents. The above provision has been made with an intention to preserve the property as it is. When any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors or where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may grant a temporary injunction. Of Course, the plaintiff has to establish prima facie case. It becomes the duty of the Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not. The Courts should go through the averments made by the party in the supporting affidavit and also the pleadings and documents filed in support of the case of the plaintiff. When a prima facie case is made out, the Courts must grant temporary injunction and see that the plaintiff is not dispossessed in the meanwhile. The urgency of passing of orders under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. should be kept in mind. Even where the Court is not inclined to grant temporary injunction or decides to issue urgent notice in that case also the Court should issue urgent notice and post the matter to a shortest date. The Court should examine what is the reasonable time required to serve the notice upon the respondents. Where the plaintiff undertake to serve the notice within two or three days, the matter need not be adjourned to a longer date. It can be posted within four days or a week. When there is urgency in the matter the attitude of the Courts in posting the matter to a longer date, in fact defeat the purpose of Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC”.

04. He relied on another decision in a case between Vaitla Rama Murthy and others Vs. Marisetty Satyanarayana , 2025 (3) ALT 427 (S.B.), in which it was held in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 as follows :

“9. In a case of Smt.K.Vijaya Lakshmi v. G. Nageswara Reddy and others (1) 2015 (3) ALT 476 = 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 684, wherein the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, observed as under :

“