THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY C.M.A.Nos.204 AND 205 OF 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Since the issue involved in both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals is one and the same, both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. These appeals are filed aggrieved by the orders, dated 09.05.2025, passed in I.A.Nos.76 and 77 of 2025 in O.S.No.27 of 2025 by the learned Vacation Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

3. Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has filed the subject Suit i.e. O.S.No.27 of 2025 against the appellant seeking cancellation of registered Sale Deed, dated 03.02.2024. In the said Suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.76 of 2025 seeking to grant ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from alienating or creating third party interest over the petition schedule property. The respondent also filed I.A.No.77 of 2025 seeking to grant ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent over the petition schedule property. The trial Court, vide impugned orders, dated 09.05.2025, granted ad interim injunction in favour of the respondent restraining the appellant from alienating the petition schedule property, without assigning any reasons, except making a bald statement that ad interim injunction is granted in favour of the respondent. The trial Court also directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the petition schedule property, without assigning any reasons.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that the trial Court ought to have assigned reasons for granting ad interim injunction and status quo. Without assigning any reasons, the trial Court has granted ad interim injunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo. Therefore, the impugned orders, dated 09.05.2025, are liable to be set aside and let the matter be remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration and to pass a detailed speaking order, after hearing both the parties.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had contended that after taking into consideration the documents filed by the respondent, the trial Court was pleased to grant ad interim injunction in favour of the respondent and also ordered status quo. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in granting the said interim reliefs. It is always open for the appellant to contest the said ad interim injunction and status quo by filing her version before the trial Court. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the appeals.

7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the trial Court has granted status quo and ad interim injunction without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the impugned orders, dated

09.05.2025, are liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the orders, dated 09.05.2025, passed in I.A.Nos.76 and 77 of 2025 in O.S.No.27 of

2025 by the learned Vacation Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, are set aside, and the subject I.As. are remitted to the trial Court for consideration afresh and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the subject I.As. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________

VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA R