Gajula Chamundeswari Vs P. Anuradha

GAJULA CHAM U NDESWARI, D/O. LATE G. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 54 Y EARS, GOVERNMENT TEACHER, R/O. D.NO.4573, AYYAPPARE D DI COLONY, 2ND STREET, PI L ER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DIS T RICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

P ANURADHA, W /o. P. RAVINDRA, AGED ABO U T 47 YEARS, OCC:CULTIVATI O N, R/o. D.No.17-67, DARAMVARIP A LLI VILLAGE, K.R.PALLI POST, FILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DIS T RICT.

¶14

S SRINIVASULU, S/o S.SIDDAPPA, AGED ABO U T 62 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVAT I ON, R/o. MATAMPALLI VILLAG E AND POST, K.V.PALLI MAND A L, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶15

S SATISH KUM A R, S/O S. SRINIVASULU, AG E D ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: CONSTABLE, R/O. MATAMPALLI V ILLAGE AND POST, K.V.PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶16

S RAJESH, S/O. S. SRINIVASULU, AGED ABO U T 33 YEARS, OCC :HOME GUARD R/O. MATAMPALLI VILLAG E AND POST, K.V.PALLI MAND A L, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶17

GAJULA CHAM U NDESWARI, W/O. LATE G.REDD E PPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEA R S, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. DA R AMVARIPALLI VILLAGE, K.R. P ALLI POST, PILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶18

2

¶19

GAJULA REDDY CHARAN, S/O. LATE G. REDDEPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. DARAMVARIPALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PALLI POST, PILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶20

GAJULA SRAVANI, W/o.GANDAM MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. DARAMVARIPALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PALLI POST, PILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶21

GAJULA CHINNA REDDEPPA, S/O. LATE G. VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. DARAMVARIPALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PALLI POST, PILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶22

GAJULA SURESH BABU, S/O. LATE G. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: CONSTABLE, R/O. DARAMVARIPALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PALLI POST, PILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶23

GAJULA SRIHARI S, /O. LATE G. VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE, R/O. DARAMVARIPALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PALLI POST, PILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶24

GAYAM VASUDEVA REDDY, S/O. LATE G. GURIVI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC:CULTIVATION (EX-ARMY), R/O. D.NO.4296, INDIRA NAGAR, PILER, PILER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶25

THAPPITA UDAYASRI, W/O. LATE T. NAGESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.6-1413, NEHRU BAZAAR.

¶26

THAPPITA ANUSHA REDDY, D/O. LATE T. NAGESWARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.6-1413, NEHRU BAZAAR, PILER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶27

THAPPITA MANASA, D/O. LATE T. NAGESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.6-1413, NEHRU BAZAAR, PILER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶28

GAJULA REDDEMMA, W/O. LATE ESWARAIAH D/O LATE G. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC :HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.4-573, AYYAPPAREDDI COLONY, 2ND STREET, PILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶29

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶30

3

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.Mr.V.R. REDDY KOVVURI

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

1.Mr.M.S.P.REDDY

¶35

2.Smt.BOTTA ARUNA

¶36

3.Mr.JITENDRA KANYALUR

¶37

4

¶38

The Court made the following Order:

¶39

The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by non-disposal of I.A.No.5 of 2025 in O.S.No.2 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piler.

¶40

The respondents 1 to 4 herein are the plaintiffs and they filed the said suit seeking declaration of title and for partition in the plaint schedule property. They filed I.A.No.5 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking ad-interim ex parte injunction directing the petitioner herein / defendant No.12 & others not to alienate the petition schedule property till disposal of the suit.

¶41

On 08.01.2025, the learned Civil Judge passed an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 12 from alienating Item No.2 of the petition schedule property, while ordering urgent notice in the said I.A.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the respondents 1 to 4 herein are not having valid title and possession over the suit schedule property, however, secured ad-interim injunction and the same is being extended from time to time. He submits that in the injunction petition, counters have been filed and in such circumstances, the application granting ad-interim injunction is required to be disposed of within 30 days, in compliance with Rule 3 A of Order XXXIX. He submits that unless the above said I.A., is directed to be disposed of, at an early date, the petitioner would suffer serious prejudice and irreparable loss.

¶43

5

¶44

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submits that the matter is coming up for filing of Commissioner’s Report and on 09.02.2026 the same was filed, that the matter now stands posted to 02.04.2026. He also points out that there is no regular Presiding Officer, but, fairly states that there is no objection for disposal of the Revision Petition with a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the I.A., in question by fixing a time limit.

¶45

This court has considered the submissions made. As noted above, the grievance of the petitioner’s is that despite filing counters in I.A., in question, the same is not disposed of, and the matter is being adjourned from time to time. While this Court see justification in the grievance of the petitioner, it appears that as the learned Trial Court is awaiting for the Advocate Commissioner’s Report, there is no regular Presiding Officer and therefore, the disposal of the above referred I.A., is delayed. However, keeping in view the requirement in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 3 A of C.P.C., and the plea of prejudice, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Revision Petition, providing that the learned Judge holding Full Additional Charge of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piler shall make endeavour to dispose of I.A.No.5 of 2025 in O.S.No.2 of 2025, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of next posting, in accordance with the Law. Needless to observe that in the meanwhile, objections if any to the Commissioner’s Report, may be filed.

¶46

6

¶47