Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kapakayala Murali Krishna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 November, 2024
APHC010016032
020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH [346
AT AMARAVATI 0]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 148/2020
Between:
Kapakayala Murali Krishna ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1 NIMMAGADDA
. REVATHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1
.
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Civil Revision Petition No. 148 of 2020
ORDER:
1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Order
dated 28.08.2018 in I.A.No.1141 of 2016 in A.S.No.73 of 2016
passed by the Additional District Judge, Kovvur, West
Godavari.
2. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff. O.S.No.199 of 2009 was
filed before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavole,
seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents from
interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
plaint schedule property i.e., an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in
RS.No.213 of Settipeta Village, Nidadavole Mandal, West
Godavari District. The said suit was dismissed on merits on
19.07.2016.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed A.S.No.73 of 2016.
Along with the Appeal, the petitioner filed the present
application seeking stay of operation of the decree and
judgment of the trial Court. The District Appellate Court vide
impugned Order rejected the said application and called upon
the petitioner to argue the main appeal. Questioning the
refusal to grant an interim order pending the appeal, the
present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
4. This Court vide Order dated 24.01.2020 directed the
parties to maintain status quo for a period of six weeks and the
same was extended from time to time. Though notices to the
contesting Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were served, there was no
representation.
5. Heard Smt Nimmagadda Revati, learned counsel for the
Petitioner.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the application filed before the District Appellate Court was
one for injunction, but was wrongly mentioned as an
application seeking stay of operation of the Decree and
Judgment, but taking into consideration the threat of
dispossession, this Court granted interim order on 24.01.2020
and the same is continuing till now.
7. Since the Appeal is of the year 2016 and the interim order
of status quo is in vogue from 24.01.2020, this Court is inclined
to dispose of the present Civil Revision Petition making the
interim order of this Court dated 24.01.2020 absolute pending
the disposal of the appeal. As the Appeal pertains to the year
2016, the District Appellate Court shall endeavour to dispose
of the Appeal on merits within a period of Six months from
today.
8. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel,
other miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 4.11.2024
eha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CRP NO. 148 of 2020
Dt. 04.11.2024
eha
