Yella Vasudeva Reddy Vs Yella Padmavathi

YELLA VASUDEVA REDDY, S/O. LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 7677, BLACK WALUT TRAIL MISSISSAUGA ONTARIO, CANADA - L5N8A6, REP. BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MUTYALA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O MUTYALA RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O 7-1-28/A/1/9, PARK AVENUE COLONY, SHYAM KARAN ROAD, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD - 500016.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

YELLA PADMAVATHI, W/O. KONDREDY VENKATA REDDY, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.8-117, MANDIRAM BAZAAR, KOTHAPETA, KANIGIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶14

YELLA VENKATA SUBBAMMA, W/O. LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KOTHAKUCHIPUDIPALLI, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶15

YELLA SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, C/O. BHARATH PETROL BUNK, PAMUR ROAD, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶16

YELLA VISWANADHA REDDY, , S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.

¶17

2

¶18

KOTHAKUCHIPUDIPALLI, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 Order dated 12-01-2026 passed in I.A. No.31 of 2026 in O.S. No.04 of 2026 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ongole, at Parkasam District, and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Docket Order dated 12-01-2026 passed in l.A.No.31 of 2026 in O.S.No.04 of 2026 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ongole, at Parkasam District, in the interest of justice.

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶24

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 permit Mutyala Krishna Reddy, S/o Mutyala Rami Reddy, aged about 62 years, R/o 7-1-28/A/1/9, Park Avenue Colony, Shyam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500016, to represent the petitioner in the captioned CRP and to sign, verify and file all necessary pleadings, affidavits and documents for the conduct of the case, in the interest of justice, and to pass

¶25

IA NO: 3 OF 2026

¶26

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 suspend the operation of the Order dated 12-01-2026 passed in I.A. No.31 of 2026 in O.S. No.04 of 2026 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ongole, at Parkasam District, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition, and to pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

3

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶33

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 324/2026

¶34

ORDER:-

¶35

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.01.2026 passed in I.A.No.31 of 2026 in O.S.No.4 of 2026 on the file of the Principle District Judge, Ongole.

¶36

The petitioner herein is defendant No.3, respondent No.1 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the suit. For the convenience of the Court, the parties herein are referred as arrayed in the suit.

¶37

The brief facts of the case are that the suit is filed for partition by the plaintiff against the defendants. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w 151 of C.P.C., for ad-interim injunction against the defendants. Wherein, the trial Court without issuing any notice to the defendants passed an order dated 12.01.2026 directing both parties to maintain status-quo as on the date of filing of suit and petition with regard to item Nos.1 to 14 of the petition schedule properties. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As issuance of notices to the respondents is not necessary in this matter, hence notices to the respondents are hereby dispensed with. Perused the material on record.

¶39

4

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the trial Court passed an interim order under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.PC., but it is neither a final order nor ad-interim injunction against the defendants only. But under the said interim order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo cannot be construed as an ad-interim injunction, even though it was passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. Therefore, the petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under supervisory powers of High Court. The interim order passed by the trial Court is without issuing any notice to the defendants and without giving any reasons for dispensing with the notices to the defendants. In the absence of the same, the status-quo order passed cannot be called as a final order under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. In view of the reasons as mentioned above, the petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking to revise the order of the trial Court.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff as well as the defendants are coparceners of the joint family properties and they are entitle to have property/ownership rights over the subject suit schedule properties. It is settled law if a suit for partition is filed, all the parties concerned are restrained/prohibited from alienation or transfer any item of the suit schedule properties in favour of the third parties. If any alienation or transfer was taken place, that alienation or transfer is subject

¶42

5

¶43

to the result of the suit. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶44

that even though an interim order of status-quo is passed, it is not an adinterim injunction by way of final order as contemplated under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., is to be considered for the reason that the order of the trial court is passed to balance and to protect the rights of both the parties and directed both the parties to maintain status-quo. As such, it is not a final order, even it is passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present interim order of status-quo was passed by the trial Court without assigning any reasons for dispensing with the issuance of notices to the defendants is merit submission. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India under the supervisory jurisdiction is valid and to be considered. It is well settled proposition of law that any order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is an appealable order under Order 43 of C.P.C. But in the present circumstances, this Court inclined to exercise its supervisory/discretionary power under Article 227 of Constitution of India to refuse the order of the trial Court. The limited prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is for a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the pending interlocutory application within a period of four(4) weeks would be considered.

¶45

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition directing the petitioner/defendant No.3 herein to submit counter-affidavit if any in I.A.No.31 of 2026, within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. After such submissions of

¶46

6

¶47

counter-affidavit in I.A.No.31 of 2026, the trial court shall dispose of the said I.A., within a period of six(6) weeks, thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

¶49

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶50

¶51

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 03.02.2026 TPS

¶52

7

¶53

229

¶54

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA