THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.315 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Amancharla V. Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri T.V. Kalyaan Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Ms. Hina Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No.85.

Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2025 in I.A.No.1058 of 2025 in Election O.P.No.1 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (‘trial Court’), wherein ad interim injunction was granted in an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. The said order is extracted and reproduced below:

“Upon motion made into this Court by Sri C. Hari Prasad and Sri M. Rajender Reddy, Advocates for the Petitioners/Petitioners, and upon reading the petition, affidavit of the Petitioners/Petitioners and upon perusing the documents filed along with petition in this matter, and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for Petitioners/Petitioners, THIS COURT DOTH ORDER THAT THERE SHALL BE AD- INTERIM INJUNCTION granted to stay the operation of the Election Resuls of the Respondents No.8 to 89 declared on 19.07.2025 till

04.08.2025.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellants insisted that the above order is devoid of reasons and therefore, liable to be set aside. He further reported ready for disposal of the I.A.No.1058 of 2025 on merits within two weeks.

4. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 opposed for vacating of the ad interim injunction order alleging that the entire election process was illegal and void ab initio. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 that the ad interim injunction passed by the trial Court be continued by fixing a time frame for disposal of I.A.No.1058 of 2025 on merits. It is also represented that counters have been filed before the trial Court and therefore, there is no obstruction for disposal of the interlocutory application at an early date.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is a fact borne by record that the trial Court did not give any reasoning for passing of the impugned order except for stating that the relevant documents are perused. When there is non-compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3-A of CPC, the order is not sustainable. This Court in Lachireddy Poornachand v. Bonthu Guruva Reddy, 2023 SCC OnLine TS 2375, held as under:

“4. In support of the above contention, the appellant had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(1993) 3 SCC 161] and also on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (TVK, J) is a Member, rendered in C.M.A. Nos. 230, 231, 232 and 233 of 2021, dt.07.06.2021, whereby this Court had deprecated the practice of even Senior Judicial Officers granting ad interim ex parte injunction orders without recording reasons.

5. Prima facie, we find force in the above said contention, inasmuch as perusal of the impugned Status quo order granted by the Court

below does not indicate recording of reasons therein, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, as above.

6. In view of the same, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for.”

6. In the circumstances stated and in absence of reasons in the impugned order, there is no option for this Court, but to set aside the impugned order.

7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2025 in I.A.No.1058 of 2025 in Election O.P.No.1 of 2025 on the file of the trial Court, with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.1058 of 2025 on merits within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 03.09.2025 GVR