Disposed¶44

Dr. Gajulapalle Rajasekhar v. Sofia Bi

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Apr 2026CMA/254/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.M.A.No.254 of 2019, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, judgment dated 09.04.2026 per Balaji Medamalli, J. (Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. on the Bench). Plaintiffs' appeal against refusal of temporary injunction in I.A.No.246 of 2018 in O.S.No.68 of 2018, VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool; appeal disposed with direction for expedition of trial, uninfluenced by interlocutory findings; no order as to costs; interim applications closed. No statutes or precedents discussed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Trial Court to expedite the disposal of the suit (O.S.No.68 of 2018), uninfluenced by the findings recorded in the order in I.A.No.246 of 2018; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. ¶44

Dr. Gajulapalle Rajasekhar Vs Sofia Bi — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

APHC010158162019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3572]

¶5

THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 254/2019

¶9

Between:

¶10

DR. GAJULAPALLE RAJASEKHAR, S/O.G.VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, HINDU, DOCTOR, R/O.H.NO.46/1-SRN-201, A- CAMP, CHANIKYAPURI COLONY, KURNOOL.

¶11

B.SUBBA RAO, , S/O.LATE B.NAGALINGAM, AGED 71 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O.H.N.87 1087-42-2, GANESH NAGAR-2, KURNOOL CITY,

¶12

DR.B.SURESH, , S/O.B.SUBBA RAO, AGED 42 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.87/1087/42-2, GANESH NAGAR-2, KURNOOL CITY.

¶13

G.ASHOK REDDY, S/O.G.RAMF REDDY, AGED 46 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.8-9-53, 54/502-1, SRI DATTA NAGAR, OPP BDL, KARMANGHAT, SAROORNAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT.

¶14

G.ANASUYAMMA, W/O.G.RAMI REDDY, AGED 60 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.8-9-53, 54/502-1, SRI DATTA NAGAR, OPP BDL, KARMANGHAT, SAROORNAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT.

¶15

¶16

DR.S.JAGADEESWARA REDDY,, S/O.S.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 39 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDING AT H.NO.46/1-B-D, FLAT NO.397, BRUNDAVAN PRIDE, KURNOOL CITY.

¶17

DR.P.DIVYA, S/O DR.S.JAGADEESWARA REDDY, AGED 31 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDING AT H.NO.46/1-B-D, FLAT NO.307, BRUNDAVAN PRIDE, KURNOOL CITY.

¶18

A.SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O.LATE A.RANGA REDDY, AGED 48 YEARS, BUSINESS, HINDU, RESIDING AT H.NO.46/1-B-D, FLAT NO.309, BRUNDAVAN PRIDE, KURNOOL CITY.

¶19

A.BHARATHI, W/O.A.SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED 48 YEARS, BUSINESS, HINDU, RESIDING AT H.NO.46/1-B-D, FLAT NO.309, BRUNDAVAN PRIDE, KURNOOL CITY.

¶20

K.SAILAJA, W/O.M.SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 39 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT H.NO.7/156-A FLAT NO.16, J.R. APARTMENTS, NGOS COLONY, CHINNA CHOWK, KADAPA TOWN

¶21

...APPELLANT(S)

¶22

AND

¶23

SOFIA BI, S/O.S.AZMATHULLA, AGED 50 YEARS, MUSLIM, HOUSEWIFE, R/O.H.NO.81/59, KURNOOL DISTRICT

¶24

SALEHA BEGUM, W/O.KHALEEL RAHAMAN, AGED 33 YEARS, MUSLIM, HOUSEWIFE, R/O.H.NO.96/3-46-89, SANTOSHNAGAR, KURNOOL.

¶25

E MADHAVI, W/O.E.NAGANNA, AGED 32 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, R/O.H.NO.74/93-A1, MAHATMANAGAR, KALLUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶26

M RAJA REDDY, S/O.M.NARAYANA REDDY, HINDU, AGED 42 YEARS, COOLIES, R/O.H.NO.70-108-4A, KALLUR, KURNOOL

¶27

¶28

DISTRICT.

¶29

K ANJANEYULU, S/O.K.SAVARNNA, AGED 40 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.70-108-4, KALLUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶30

C P THIRUPALU, S/O.VENKATASWAMY, AGED 47 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.82/119, SHAREEN NAGAR, KALLUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶31

M DEVAMMA, W/O.LATE M.DANAMAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, HINDU, COOLIE, R/O.H.NO.74-106, MAHATMA NAGAR, KALLUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶32

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶33

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶34

1.N SUBBA RAO

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶36

1.M SIVA JYOTHI

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶40

C.M.A.No.254 of 2019

¶41

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Balaji Medamalli)

¶42

The plaintiffs’ have filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.01.2019 in I.A.No.246 of 2018 in O.S.No.68 of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, refusing to grant temporary injunction.

¶43

Sri V.Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants’ counsel, submits that the suit is coming up for arguments on 15.04.2026, and the appeal has been pending since 2019, it would be appropriate to direct the learned Trial Court to expedite the disposal of the suit.

¶44

Considering the above submissions, the C.M.A. is disposed of directing the learned Trial Court to expedite the disposal of the suit itself, uninfluenced by the findings recorded in the order passed

¶45

¶46

in I.A.No.246 of 2018 in O.S.No.68 of 2018. There shall be no order

¶47

as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall

¶49

stand closed.

¶50

¶51

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J