AND C.M.A. No.153 OF 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar)

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.03.2025 in I.A. No.410 of 2025 in O.S. No.405 of 2025 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The appellant herein is the respondent No.12 in the interlocutory application filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein as petitioners. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for declaration. The plaintiffs along with the suit filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendant No.12, the appellant herein from alienating the suit schedule property till the disposal of the main suit. The trial Court after hearing the petitioner/plaintiff by order dated 28.03.2025 granted ad-

interim injunction till 11.04.2025.

4. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present appeal is filed on 21.04.2025. Further against the ex parte ad-interim injunction, the appellant herein ought to have availed the remedy provided under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC by entering appearance and filing counter therein seeking to discharge, vary or set aside the order. If only the appellant had entered his appearance and filed petition under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC and if only the trial Court failed to dispose of the said interlocutory application within 30 days as mandated under the Order XXXIX Rule 3A of CPC, an appeal can be filed as observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Innovative Pharma Surgicals v. Pigeon Medical Devices (P) Ltd., MANU/AP/0148/2004 by referring to the decision of the Apex Court in A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu v. S. Chellapppan2 wherein the Apex Court had held as under:

16. Learned Single Judge stated that the trial court ought not to have granted ex parte injunction beyond thirty days to be in force. The said observation is based on the language contained in Order 39 Rule 3-A of the Code which reads thus:

“3-A. Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for

such inability.”

2 (2000)7 SCC 695

17. The Rule does not say that the period of the injunction order should be restricted by the court to thirty days at the first instance, but the court should pass the final order on it within thirty days from the day on which the injunction was granted. Hence, the order does not ipso facto become illegal merely because it was not restricted to a period of thirty days or less.

5. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the appellant instead of approaching this Court by filing the present CMA ought to be relegated to approach the concerned trial Court which had granted the ex parte ad-interim injunction.

6. Granting liberty as above, the CMA is disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the CMA, shall stand closed.

T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 24.04.2025 P. SREE SUDHA, J

MRKR