BOYA KISTAMMA AND THREE OTHERS V. BOYA SURI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2029 OF 2025:

DATE: 10/10/2025

COURT: High Court of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH:  Justice Subba Reddy Satti

FACTS:

The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 58 of 2023 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering with his possession over certain ancestral lands situated in the village. Along with the suit, he filed I.A. No. 39 of 2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an ad-interim injunction. The plaintiff claimed that his father owned ancestral property and that he was in peaceful possession of lands measuring a total of Ac.1.53 cents in Survey Nos. 43-1-A-2, 4-3-A, and 4-3-B. He produced documents such as updated Records of Rights (ROR), pattadar passbooks, and loan records from APGV Bank to establish his possession. He alleged that defendants 1 to 4, being influential individuals, attempted to trespass upon his land and forcibly evict him, which led him to seek the court’s protection. The Trial Court initially granted an ad-interim injunction on February 4, 2023.

The defendants, particularly defendant No. 3, contested the plaintiff’s claim by filing a written statement and a counter-affidavit. They contended that the plaintiff was the son of defendant No. 1’s brother and that the family properties had long been divided, with each branch in possession of its respective share. They asserted that land measuring Ac.1.90 cents in Survey No. 43/1P exclusively belonged to defendant No. 1, for which a pattadar passbook and title deed had been issued in her name since 1979, followed by an e-pattadar passbook in 2015. The defendants accused the plaintiff of influencing village officials to wrongfully mutate part of defendant No. 1’s land in his name. The Trial Court, after considering the materials, modified the injunction to a status quo order on September 25, 2023. However, on appeal (C.M.A. No. 1 of 2025), the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, reversed the Trial Court’s order and granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff on June 16, 2025, prompting the defendants to file the present civil revision petition.

ISSUES:

The key issue before the Court was whether the order of the trial court directing the parties to maintain status quo without recording a finding regarding actual possession of the property was valid, and whether the appellate court rightly interfered with that order by granting a temporary injunction. Additionally, the Court examined whether the plaintiff, who obtained a temporary injunction, could be directed to furnish security or compensate the defendants under Section 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Order XXXIX Rules 3A and 3B (as amended in Andhra Pradesh), in the event of misuse or lack of sufficient grounds for such injunction.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants and upheld the appellate court’s order granting a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. However, it directed the plaintiff to file an undertaking affidavit before the trial court within four weeks in compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3A (A.P. State Amendment), to secure the interests of the defendants in case the suit ultimately fails. The Court further clarified that its observations were confined to the interlocutory stage and would not influence the trial on merits.

The Court reasoned that the trial court had erred in granting an order of status quo without recording who was in possession of the property. Citing Kishore Kumar Khatiar v. Praveen Kumar Singh (AIR 2006 SC 1474), it emphasized that status quo orders must specify the factual position to be preserved, either possession or the condition of the property otherwise, such orders lead to ambiguity and potential misuse. The High Court observed that vague status quo orders have become a “shortcut method” in trial courts, creating confusion and unnecessary litigation. Therefore, the trial court’s order suffered from irregularity, while the appellate court rightly exercised its jurisdiction by correcting the same and granting a properly reasoned temporary injunction.

Furthermore, the Court discussed the appellate court’s limited scope in interfering with discretionary orders under Order 43 CPC. Referring to Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi (2024 SCC Online SC 3538), it held that appellate courts should interfere only when discretion is exercised perversely or contrary to legal principles. In this case, the appellate court’s order was within those limits and based on proper consideration of material evidence. However, the High Court found that the appellate court failed to invoke Rule 3A of Order XXXIX (A.P. Amendment), which empowers courts to seek security from the party obtaining an injunction. Hence, while affirming the temporary injunction, the Court directed the plaintiff to provide an undertaking affidavit, thereby balancing the equities and safeguarding the defendants’ interests pending the final adjudication of the suit.

ANALYSIS:

This case highlights the judicial emphasis on precision and accountability in the grant of interim reliefs, particularly orders of status quo and temporary injunctions. The Andhra Pradesh High Court underscored that status quo orders cannot be passed mechanically without determining the factual possession or condition of the property in dispute. By relying on Kishore Kumar Khatiar v. Praveen Kumar Singh, the Court reinforced that trial courts must explicitly record who is in possession to avoid ambiguity and potential misuse. The judgment criticizes the growing tendency of lower courts to adopt status quo as a “shortcut” approach, which not only creates confusion but also undermines the clarity necessary for effective judicial enforcement. Through this observation, the Court sought to restore procedural discipline in granting interim orders, ensuring that such directions are based on factual determinations and supported by material evidence.

Further, the Court’s approach reflects a balanced interpretation of the scope of appellate intervention in discretionary matters. Citing Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi, the High Court reaffirmed that appellate courts can interfere with interim orders only when the trial court’s discretion is exercised arbitrarily or contrary to law. In this case, since the trial court’s status quo order lacked necessary factual findings, the appellate court’s interference was justified. The High Court’s additional direction requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking under Order XXXIX Rule 3A (A.P. Amendment) reflects a proactive attempt to balance equities and protect defendants from potential losses arising from unjustified injunctions. This reinforces the principle that interim relief must serve both justice and fairness, safeguarding the legitimate interests of all parties pending final adjudication.