Telangana High Court
Sri Divi Satya Sayee Babu vs Late Smt. M Sridevi Since Died Per Lr on 11 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1798 of 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is filed against the order dated 30.04.2024 in
CMA.No.10 of 2024, passed by the X Additional District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the
‘First Appellate Court’), confirming the order of interim injunction
dated 15.12.2023 in IA.No.277 of 2019 in OS No.64 of 2019
passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy
District (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’).
2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioners in
the affidavit filed in support of the present Civil Revision Petition,
are that:
2.1 The petitioners are absolute owners of Acs.3-12 Gts of land
located in Survey No.692 of Janwada Village, Shankarpally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that the said land was once part of
a larger extent held by one Jagannatha Reddy and was cultivated
jointly by protected tenants-Potti Lingaiah and Tallari Lakshmaiah
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
2and subsequently, by the legal heirs of the Potti/Maheshwaram and
Tallari families and were recognized as successors.
2.2 In 1997, under the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’), succession of tenancy rights
over Acs.5-27 Gts of land was granted to Potti Maisaiah and Potti
Krishna and after partial surrender of their protected tenancy rights
by the said persons under Section 19(1) of the Act, possession over
the remaining extent of Acs.3-12 gts of land was handed over to
Potti Venkataiah, Tallari Shankaraiah and their brothers, who are
in all ten in number, in 2004, who in turn, filed an application for
grant of certificate declaring them as purchasers under Section
38(6) of the Act upon depositing the price fixed under section 38
(3) of the Act; that the said application was allowed by Collector-
cum-RDO, Chevella Division and pursuant to the same, the ten
legal heirs of the protected tenants deposited a sum of Rs.165/- and
they were declared ‘owners’ and were also issued Occupancy
Certificates and pattadar passbooks in 2005.
2.4 Later, the said ten legal heirs of protected tenents executed
an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
3
one Rangaraju Ravi Kumar, who sold the land admeasuring Acs.2-
28 Gts. to one D Seema and land admeasuring Ac. 0-24 Gts to one
S Sreedevi. D Seema gifted her share to her daughter-D.Vasanthi.
In 2016, both Vasanthi and Sreedevi sold the entire extent of land
to one B Sujatha (Ac.0-39 Gts.) and Sri Divi Satya Sayee Babu
(Acs.2-13 Gts.), who later executed General Powers of Attorney in
favour of one B.Lakshmana Rao.
2.5 Meanwhile, the respondents, without any legal right,
fabricated a story that the protected tenants-Potti Lingaiah and
Tallari Lakshmaiah have orally surrendered their tenancy rights to
the original pattadar-Jagannatha Reddy, who, later sold the land
under an unregistered deed to one Bojana Mallaiah. This claim,
unsupported by any official record, led to a narrative that the land
eventually passed through several hands and ultimately, to
respondent No.1-M.Sri Devi, who allegedly purchased it in 2001;
that in 2005, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Joint
Collector challenging the ownership of heirs of protected tenants
and the same was dismissed for default in 2006; and that
respondent No.1 also filed two Tenancy Appeals before the Joint
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
4
Collector, Ranga Reddy District in 2006, challenging the
succession order dated 04.11.1997, granted in favour of respondent
No.1 and the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated
25.08.2024 issued in favour of legal heirs of the protected tenants.
2.6 The Joint Collector, despite raising the plea of res judicata,
erroneously invoked the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and
Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 (for short ‘the ROR Act‘) and
allowed both appeals vide order dated 28.03.2008, holding that the
heirs of the protected tenants approached the authority with
inordinate delay and as such, the Mandal Revenue Officer ought
not to have issued proceedings, dated 04.11.1997 and accordingly,
set aside the succession order dated 04.11.1997 and possession
order dated 25.08.2002. However, no steps were taken pursuant to
the said order until the respondents initiated mutation proceedings
based on the said order in the year 2019. The Mandal Revenue
Officer altered the entries in the revenue records, without notifying
the petitioners whose names were already existing in the revenue
records and the petitioners came to know about the mutation
proceedings only on filing of OS.No.64 of 2019 by respondents
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
5
`herein- i.e., legal heir of M.Sridevi against them seeking relief of
permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the mutation proceedings, the
petitioners filed W.P.No.10643 of 2019 before the High Court to
call for the records pertaining to the orders dated 28.03.2008
passed by the Joint Collector and mutation proceedings dated
11.02.2019 and to quash the same and the said writ petition is
pending adjudication.
3. In the meantime, in OS.No.64 of 2019, the respondents
sought to prevent the petitioners from interfering with their
possession and alienating the land and they obtained an ad-interim
injunction on 28.03.2019, which was later made absolute on
15.12.2023, despite the petitioners asserting their lawful title.
Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed CMA No.10 of
2024, but the First Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal on
30.04.2024, confirming the interim order of the trial court.
Questioning the said order, the petitioners have filed the present
Civil Revision Petition.
4. This Court, on 14.06.2024, passed an interim order of Status
Quo in IA.No.1 of 2024, which interim order, the petitioners
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
6
earlier had all along the pendency of CMA.No.10 of 2024 before
the First Appellate Court.
5. Heard Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel, appearing for Sri Sannapaneni Lohit, learned counsel on
record for the petitioners, and Sri Govardhan Venu, learned
counsel representing M/s Nomos Vistas, learned counsel on record
for the respondents.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the First Appellate Court erred in law and on facts in
granting an order of temporary injunction in favor of Respondent
No.1, vide impugned order. He further submitted that the findings
of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are vitiated
by perversity, non-appreciation of material evidence and
misapplication of settled principles governing possession and title,
particularly in the context of lands held under protected tenancy.
7. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Petitioners
have produced cogent documentary evidence demonstrating their
possession and title, including a succession order dated
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
7
04.11.1997, possession proceedings dated 25.08.2004, a
Panchanama dated 08.09.2004, and a certificate issued under
Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act. These documents establish that
the Petitioners are the legal heirs of the protected tenants and as
such, they were duly delivered possession in accordance with law.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that that the First
Appellate Court erred in treating the succession order alone as
conclusive and disregarding the independent possession
proceedings conducted under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. He
further submitted that the plea of the respondents as regards the
oral surrender of protected tenancy rights by the legal heirs of the
protected tenants in favour of the original owner-Jagannatha Reddy
in the year 1954, followed by an unregistered sale, is untenable in
law and the said claim is not supported by any documentary
evidence.
8. As regards the issue of possession, learned senior counsel
submitted that the Respondents have failed to demonstrate their
lawful possession at any point. The Petitioners, on the other hand,
have established their continuous possession through pahanies,
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
8
construction of a compound wall and gate and the No Objection
Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat. The Panchanama dated
08.04.2019 issued by the Village Revenue Officer, though, later
disowned through a memo, clearly recorded the Petitioners’
possession and cannot be disregarded in the absence of a legally
binding determination to the contrary. Learned senior counsel
further submitted that the mutation proceedings dated 11.02.2019,
relied upon by the Respondents are, in fact, passed without serving
any notice to the Petitioners. These entries, being the subject
matter of challenge in pending WP.No.10643 of 2019, the same
cannot form the basis for adjudicating title or possession over the
suit schedule property, particularly in a suit for injunction. He
further submitted that the mutation entries are fiscal in nature and
does not confer any title.
8. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the
Respondents have instituted the suit for bare injunction without
seeking declaratory relief of title, despite existence of a serious
title dispute, and as such, the suit itself is not maintainable. He
further pointed to the material discrepancies in the title documents
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
9
of the respondents, particularly the inconsistency in the extent of
land purportedly conveyed thereunder. While the Respondents
claim to have acquired Acs.7-25 guntas under document bearing
No.3075 of 2001, their predecessor-in-title held only Acs.5-30
guntas under document No.2025 of 1981. No explanation has been
offered by the respondent for the excess land claimed by them,
thereby casting serious doubt on their title. By contending thus,
learned senior counsel prayed to allow the Revision Petition by
setting aside the impugned Order.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable either in law or
on facts. The Petitioners, being third-party purchasers claiming
under alleged successors of self-proclaimed protected tenants, are
not recognized as protected tenants under Act XXI of 1950, and
their reliance on the said Act is wholly misconceived. He further
contended that the orders passed by the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court are well-reasoned and does not suffer from
jurisdictional error or perversity. He further contended that the
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
10
present Revision Petition, in substance, is a Second Appeal, which
is impermissible under Article 227 of the Constitution.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondents further contended that
the Petitioners’ title and possession over the suit land are disputed;
their documents are vague and contradictory; hence, the First
Appellate Court rightly rejected their claims after detailed analysis,
noting inconsistencies and lack of bona fide. It is also submitted
that the Respondents asserted that the alleged protected tenancy
was extinguished by valid oral surrender in 1951, prior to the
notified date under the 1954 Amendment, and the land has since
remained with the pattadar and his successors and therefore, the
names of the alleged tenants do not appear in revenue records post-
1951.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
proceedings under Section 40 of the Act issued in the year 1997,
the subsequent transactions, including the issuance of Section
38(6) certificates and mutations, were assailed as fraudulent and
without jurisdiction by respondent No.1 and the said orders were
set aside by the Joint Collector vide order dated 28.03.2008, which
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
11
remained unchallenged and hence, attained finality. Consequently,
all derivative claims by the Petitioners are void ab initio. He
further submitted that the title of the Respondents in respect of the
suit schedule property and their possession thereof, is supported by
the sale deeds and consistent revenue entries since the year 2001,
i.e., the respondents derive title based on the sale deed bearing
document No.3075/2001, dated 26.04.2001, and their possession of
the suit schedule property is evident from the mutation proceedings
of Tahsildar, Shankarapalli, dated 11.02.2019, and also the
Panchanama of the Village Revenue Officer, dated 24.01.2018,
issued in respect of the suit schedule property; and that considering
all these aspects, the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction,
which was affirmed in Appeal by the First Appellate Court. These
concurrent findings cannot be disturbed in a revision and therefore,
the claim of the Petitioners suffer from laches, lack of locus and
are based on void proceedings. He finally prays to dismiss the
Revision Petition as it is devoid of merits.
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
12
CONSIDERATION:
13. From the above factual matrix of the case and the material
placed on record, the only point for consideration in this Revision
Petition is “whether the injunction order passed by the Junior
Civil Judge, Chevella, RR District, in IA.No.277/2019 in
O.S.No. 64/2019, dated 15.12.2023, as was confirmed by the X
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar,
in CMA.No.10 of 2024 dated 30.04.2024, needs interference or
modification by this Court?”
14. To establish the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and to interfere with the
order of the First Appellate Court, the learned senior counsel for
the petitioners relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble
Apex Court:
i. Muppidi Chandra Mohan Reddy and another vs
Methuku Santosh1
ii. Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S.
Guram2
iii. Mani Nariman Daruwala vs. Phiroz N. Bhatena and
others31
2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 305
2
(1986) 4 SCC 447
3
(1991) 3 SCC 141
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
13iv. Baby vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and others 4
In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that the High Court exercising power of Article 227 can interfere
with even the impugned orders passed by the sub-ordinate Courts
if there is any miscarriage of justice or any violation of law. In the
exercise of the said power, the High Court can also interfere,
ignore or set aside the findings which are perverse in law.
14.1 Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has
relied upon the following cases to support of his contentions that
revision is not maintainable:
i. Binodlal Sagarmal and ors. vs. Prem Prakash gupta
and ors., 2003 (5) ALD 222
ii. Yeshwant Sakhalkar and anr. vs. Hirabat kamat
Mhamai and anr., 2004 (6) SCC 71
iii. Ganta Chinna Shankaraiah vs. Nadunoori Swamy,
2006 (3) ALD 646
iv. Juvvaji Ravinder & anr. vs. Jakkula Pushpaleela,
CDJ 2024 TSHC 346.
v. Govindhu Akasham Kongalla Akasham vs. Smt.
Kongalla Sulochana Govindhu, (2019)4
(1998) 8 SCC 310
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
14The power of the Hon’ble High Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution was discussed in the cases referred to by the
learned counsel for the respondents.
15. It is a settled principle of law that an injunction cannot be
granted when there is a cloud over the title, and the matter has to
be decided in terms of possession. It is also a settled principle of
law that when there are serious disputes of facts, then the issues
shall be decided during the trial. The said principles have been
upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases, and to
reiterate the same, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
have relied upon the following judgements:
(2008) 4 SCC 594
ii. T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy vs. M. Mallappa and anr.
(2021) 13 SCC 135.
iii. Saketa Vaksana LLP and ors. vs. Kaukutla Sarala
and ors. (2020) 11 SCC 773.
16. It is pertinent to note that the title of the petitioners in the
present case can be traced from their vendors, i.e., the ownership
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
15
certificate issued under Section 38(6) of the Act, and hence, the
vendor becomes the absolute owner from whom the third parties
and the present petitioner has obtained the title and the possession
by the way of panchanama. Hence, considering this, the title and
the possession are being claimed by both parties, and there is no
clear prima facie case and balance of convenience on the part of
the respondents as stated by the Trial Court and concurred by the
First Appellate Court.
17. It is also to be noted that, the cardinal principles that govern
the grant or refusal of injunctions are establishing a prima facie
case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. And in the
broad category of prima facie case, it is imperative for the Court to
carefully analyse the pleadings and the documents on record. Only
on that basis, the Court gives its findings, but here, in the present
case, both the Courts have failed to look into the material placed
on record. It is also pertinent to note that, though there are
concurrent findings, the Trial Court did not discuss the documents
and simply extracted the details of the documents produced by the
respondents, based upon which it concluded that those documents
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
16
are conclusive with regard to the aspect of the possession of the
respondents. That apart, the Appellate Court observed that the
parties are claiming the scheduled land to be situated in different
survey numbers. Hence, it is clear that the same is not a concurring
finding of fact as far as the injunction is concerned.
18. Furthermore, it is clear that there is a cloud over the title,
however, the suit is filed for injunction simpliator. As per the
settled principles of law, the injunction cannot be sought and
granted, when there is no clear title or possession on behalf of the
parties. Hence, this Appellate Court and thereby, granting
injunction when there is a clear cloud over the title and hence, this
Court exercising the power under under Article 227 is inclined to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the First Appellate
Court.
19. Further, there is serious dispute with regard to title over the
suit schedule property and this aspect has to be adjudicated after
full-fledged trial of the suit Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
delve into the aspect of title of the parties.
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
17
20. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the respondents have further relied upon the
following judgments, in support of their respective contentions:
i. Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo
Jack De Sequeira (2012) 5 SCC 370
ii. Kotaiah and anr. vs. Property Association of the
Baptist Churches (Pvt) Ltd., (1989) 3 SCC 424
iii. Bakaram Jangaiah vs. Gunde Laxmamma, 1998
SCC OnLine AP 864
iv. Thota Sridhar Reddy and ors. vs. Mandala
Ramulamma and ors., (2021) 16 SCC 1
v. Venkanna and ors. vs. Pichikuntal Buchamma and
ors., (1971) 2 APLJ 266
vi. Makkan Lakshmamma vs. Abdul Gafoor, (2024) 4
ALT 249
vii. Satish Mutually Aided Co-Operative Housing Society
Ltd. Hyderabad vs. Joint collector, RR District and
ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 2175
viii. Narangi Bai vs. Yadagiri Bal Raj, 2011 (1) ALT 323
ix. Mohd. Qutabuddin vs. Aziz Khan and ors., (2003) 7
ALT 69
x. Subhan Reddy vs. Konneti Mallappa & Ors., 1987
SCC OnLine AP 406
xi. V. Ramaswamy vs. The State of Telangana, (2021) 6
ALT 580
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
18xii. Rachappa vs. Bhumani Hanumaiah & Anr., 2011 (4)
ALD 212
xiii. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. N.R.
Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579
xiv. Veduruthala Seetharamamma vs. Badnath Herija
and anr. (1959) 1 ALT 650
xv. K. Galreddy vs. S. Nagaiah, (1986) 2 ALT (NRC) 262
xvi. Ponam Bai vs. Ajmeer Bhikku, (1988) 1 ALT 93
xvii. Syed Abdul Majeed @ Mia Pasha and ors. vs. Joint
Collector – II, RR District and ors., 2006 (5) ALT 754
xviii. J. Narayana & ors. vs. Jainapalli Pedda Kistaiah &
ors., (2013)
xix. Kontham Anji Reddy and ors. vs. Nimmagudem
Laxmaiah and ors., (2018)
xx. B. Malla Reddy vs. The State of Telangana, (2021)
xxi. Vorla Ramachandra Reddy vs. Joint Collector (2021)
xxii. K. Narasimhulu Talla Narasimhulu vs. The State of
Telangana, (2021)
xxiii. K. Rukka Reddy vs. Joint Collector (2021)
xxiv. Gaddam Ramulu vs. Joint Collector (2019)
xxv. A Narasimha vs. A Krishna & ors., CDJ 2005 APHC
874
xxvi. Boddam Narsimha vs. Hasan Ali Khan & ors., 2007
(11) SCC 410
xxvii. Gone Rajamma & ors. vs. Chennamaneni Mohan
Rao, CDJ 2010 APHC 195
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
19xxviii. Jt. Collector RR Dist & anr. vs. D. Narsing Rao &
ors., 2015 (3) SCC 695
xxix. Home Care Retail Marts P. Ltd. vs. New Era Fabrics
Ltd. AIRONLINE 2009 SC 364
xxx. M Bagi Reddy vs. T Krishna Reddy, CDJ 2000
APHC 469
xxxi. Shaik Nabi vs. N. Parijattha, CDJ 1995 APHC 583
xxxii. Gajam Krishna vs. Srikanth Reddy and anr., (2019)
21. The aforesaid judgments are rendered on various issues,
viz., alienation of tenanted land, termination of protected tenancy,
period of limitation under the Tenancy Act, ownership certificate
under the Tenancy Act, alienation made in contravention of the
Act, concept of laches, jurisdiction of Tahsildar under the Tenancy
Act, tenant voluntarily surrendering the possession, succession
under the Tenancy Act, correction of fraudulent entries in Khasra
Pahani, grant of concurrent injunction during the existence of leave
and license agreement, injunction in terms of inam lands under
Inam Abolition Act and valid GPA holder in better position to
convey the title. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view
that these cases are not relevant to the present issue at hand, i.e.,
with respect to the grant of injunction, and the same are to be dealt
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
20
with by the Trial Court while dealing with the questions of fact and
law that arise for consideration while adjudication of the suit.
22. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
following judgments for not granting the relief of ‘status quo’ as
prayed by the petitioners:
i. Chirapareddi Veeramma and ors. vs Sk. Mahaboob
Subhani and Ors., 1991 (1) ALT 366
ii. Mangilal Chowdary vs. P. Kasinath Yadav, CDJ
2019 TSHC 242
23. In the aforesaid judgments, it was held that the Courts
should not frequently resort to granting orders to maintain “status
quo” and before passing such an order, it is incumbent on the
Court to give a finding as to the particular status quo that it wants
to be maintained.
24. In the case on hand, it is relevant to note that the petitioners
are tracing their title over the suit schedule property from the
protected tenants who have been issued a Certificate under Section
38(6) of the Act, whereas it is the specific case of the respondents
that there was no protected tenants and in fact, the tenants have
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
21
surrendered their rights orally in the year 1951, i.e., prior to the
notified date under 1954 Amendment.
25. The respondents are tracing their title through unregistered
sale deed executed by one Bojana Mallaiah. It is the specific
contention of the petitioners that a copy of the said unregistered
sale deed purported to have been executed by Bojana Mallaiah is
not placed on record. Further, it is also the contention of the
petitioners that the respondents are claiming to have acquired an
extent of Acs.7-25 guntas under document No.3075/2021, whereas
their predecessor-in-title held only an extent of Acs.5.30 guntas
under document No.2025/1998. Thus, there is serious dispute with
regard to title in respect of the suit schedule property being
claimed by both the parties.
26. It is also interesting to note that the petitioners are claiming
to be in possession of the suit schedule property pursuant to
possession proceedings dated 25.08.2004 and panchanama dated
08.09.2004, whereas the respondents are claiming to be in
possession of the suit schedule property, basing on the unregistered
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
22
sale deed bearing document No.3075/2001 dated 26.04.2001,
mutation proceedings of Tahsildar, Shankarapalli, dated
11.02.2019 and also the Panchanama of the Village Revenue
Officer, dated 24.01.2018 issued in respect of the suit schedule
property.
27. Thus, from the above, it is evident that there is serious
dispute with regard to title as well as possession over the suit
schedule property between both the parties and the same is the
subject matter of adjudication in the suit.
28. Therefore, in considered view of this Court, granting order
of interim injunction to either party may result in irreversible
consequences, and if possession changes hands, it could disturb the
balance of equities and potentially cause irreparable injury,
particularly when there is a cloud over title in respect of the suit
schedule property and both the parties are claiming to be in
possession of the suit schedule property and the said issues can be
comprehensively determined after a full-fledged trial in the suit. In
such an event, grave injustice would be caused, if injunction is
granted in favour of one of the parties, and as such, this Court
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
23
cannot concur with the impugned order of the First Appellate
Court.
29. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered opinion that
maintaining ‘status quo’ ensures that the rights of both the parties
are safeguarded until the trial Court adjudicates the substantive
issues, and it also prevents either party from altering the physical
or legal character of the scheduled property during the pendency of
the suit.
CONCLUSION:
30. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition
is allowed and the order dated 30.04.2024 in CMA.No.10 of 2024
passed by the X Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
LB Nagar is hereby set aside. However, in view of peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, this Court
deems it appropriate to direct both the parties to maintain status
quo during the pendency of the suit. Since the subject suit is of the
year 2019, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of
the suit as expeditiously as possible.
LNA,J
C.R.P No.1798 of 2024
24
31. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:11.06.2025
Dr