Advocate General vs Anjaneyulu Appearing For The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3177 AP

                                      1




     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                                   AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

                           I.A.No.1 of 2023
                                     in
                   APPEAL SUIT No.82 of 2021

ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)

        This Court has heard Sri P. Shreyas Reddy, learned

Government Pleader, representing office of the learned

Advocate       General,      appearing       for     the   respondents-

appellants and learned Senior counsel Sri V.S.R.

Anjaneyulu appearing for the vacate petitioner-respondent

No.2.

2) The Appeal Suit is filed by the State against the

judgment and decree, dated 09.12.2019, passed by the

learned X Additional District Judge-cum-Special Sessions

Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, in O.S.No.26 of 2013.

An order of status quo was granted in this Appeal Suit on

20.04.2021.

3) Since an order of status quo was granted by this

Court in I.A.No.1 of 2020, respondent No.2 filed a vacate

stay petition to vacate the said order.

4) The matter was heard at length. Both the learned

counsel argued the matter pointing out various issues.

5) Learned senior counsel for the respondent essentially

argues that the reasoned order is passed by the trial Court

after considering voluminous oral and documentary

evidence is virtually set at naught by the status quo order

and the successful plaintiff is unable to enjoy the fruits of

his decree. He points out the property is not even assessed

to tax and is deteriorating in value.

6) In response to this Sri P. Shreyas Reddy argues that

there are seriously disputed questions and if the identity of

the property etc., is changed or if the order of status quo is

vacated, the appellants will suffer serious loss.

7) This Court notices that the arguments of both the

counsel points out to certain serious contentious issues,

among which are the genuinity of Will (Ex.A1),

classification of the land as the grama chavidi, entries in

revenue records and also the possession of the plaintiff.

An issue is also raised about the extent of land. While it is

a fact that a full fledged trial is conducted, it is also to be

kept in mind that the first appeal is a continuation of suit.

Therefore, both fact and law can be examined in detail by

this Court.

8) Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that vacating

the order of the status quo is not really warranted in the

facts and circumstances of this case. The property should

be preserved as it is and despite the vehement objections

raised by the learned senior counsel, this Court is of the

opinion that the interim order, dated 15.03.2021, as

extended by an order dated 20.04.2021, shall continue.

9) With the above observation, the vacate stay petition is

dismissed. All issues are left upon to be urged in the

course of the hearing of the appeal. No costs.

_________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date:15.06.2023 Ssv