Dismissed

A Naga Raja Kumari v. Savanth Sivaji Ganeshan Rus

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026CRP/1366/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession, obtained a temporary injunction from the trial court. The defendants appealed and the lower appellate court set aside the injunction, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. The High Court declined to interfere with the appellate court's order and disposed of the civil revision petition with a direction to the trial court to expedite disposal of the main suit.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; trial court directed to expedite disposal of O.S. No. 1121/2019.

A Naga Raja Kumari Vs Savanth Sivaji Ganeshan Rus — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3330]

¶2

APHC010193842026

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1366/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

A NAGA RAJA KUMARI, W/O LATE A. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE R/OD.NO.43/151-2, PRAKASH NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT- 516001.

¶10

A. NARASIMHA PRASAD,, S/O LATE A. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/OD.NO.43/151-2, PRAKASH NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT516001.

¶11

A.N. SREE HARI,, S/O LATE A. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO.43/151-2, PRAKASH NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT- 516001.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

SAVANTH SIVAJI GANESHAN RUS, S/O SAVANTH KRISHNAJI RADO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O W/S ASI-286,KADAPA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KADAPA, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT516001.

¶15

SAVANTH SREENATH RAO, S/O SAVANTH KRISHNAJI RADO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O ARSI-5775, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, CHRISTIAN LINE, KADAPA, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT- 516001.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

¶18

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to SET ASIDE the order dt.13-02-2026 passed in C.M.A.No.18/2022 on the file of Hon'ble VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa by dismissing the same and confirm the order dt.18-04-2022 passed in I.A.No.2097/2019 in O.S.No.1121/20 19 on the file of Hon'ble III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to STAY the operation of the order and decretal order dt.13-02-2026 passed in C.M.A.No. 18/2022 on the file of Hon’ble VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa till disposal of the main CRP by dispensing with urgent orders and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶22

1.A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.G RAMESH BABU

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶28

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1366 OF 2026

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The petitioners herein, who are plaintiffs, filed a suit vide O.S.No.1121 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, initially for permanent injunction and subsequently, filed amendment petition for recovery of possession. The petitioners filed I.A.No.2097 of 2019 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interference and I.A.No.2098 of 2019 restraining the respondents from making any constructions into the site of the petitioners. Both the applications were allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.04.2022.

¶31

Aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2022, the respondents, who are defendants in the suit, filed C.M.A.No.18 of 2022 on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The learned lower appellate Court allowed the said C.M.A. vide Judgment dated 13.02.2026 and set aside the order dated 18.04.2022, inter alia, observing that the petitioners/plaintiffs, have not filed any document to show that they left two (02) feet on western side and one and half feet (01 ½) on eastern side and failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss etc., as it is the burden of the petitioners, who approached the Court. The said judgment dated 13.02.2026, is challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶32

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶34

Admittedly, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the prayer for recovery of possession and it was allowed. It indicates that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶35

This Court is not inclined to interdict with the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in C.M.A.No.18 of 2022. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to make an endeavour for early disposal of the suit vide O.S.No.1121 of 2019 on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed.

¶37

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 10.09.2026

KBN

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶43

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1366 of 2026

¶44

Date: 10.09.2026

¶45

KBN

A Naga Raja Kumari v. Savanth Sivaji Ganeshan Rus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Naga Raja Kumari v. Savanth Sivaji Ganeshan Rus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases