Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Temporary Injunction for Failure to Mark Documents and Breach of Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice

A Division Bench at Amaravati remanded a temporary injunction order after finding the trial court failed to mark documents, ignored the multiple-relief bar under Rule 55, and recorded findings without any documentary basis.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in a judgment pronounced on 23 June 2026, set aside a temporary injunction granted by the VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa on 31 March 2026 and remanded the interlocutory application for fresh consideration. The Division Bench of Justice D. Ramesh and Justice Balaji Medamalli, with the judgment authored by Justice Balaji Medamalli, found three independent infirmities in the trial court's order: it entertained a single application seeking multiple distinct reliefs in violation of Rule 55 of the AP Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980; it acknowledged documents filed by both sides but refused to give them any marking; and it recorded a finding of possession in the plaintiffs' favour without referring to any specific documentary evidence. The appeal arose from a suit over agricultural land in Mamillapalle Village, C.K. Dinne Mandalam, where competing claims of possessory title and a string of registered sale transactions from 1927 to 2020 are in direct conflict.

The Suit and the Injunction Challenged Before the High Court

Respondents 1 to 3 — the plaintiffs — filed O.S. No. 75 of 2025 before the VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Their case rested on possessory title to land in Survey No. 555 and Survey No. 349 of Mamillapalle Village. As per the Revenue Settlement Register (RSR), the land in Sy. No. 555 measuring Ac. 3.18 cents stood in the names of 12 members. The plaintiffs contended that, in an oral partition, that land and the land in Sy. No. 349 fell to the share of Pagadala Nagaiah, and that after his death the eldest son, the first plaintiff, continued in possession with his name mutated in revenue records.

The suit sought several reliefs: a declaration of possessory right in favour of the first plaintiff; a declaration that four registered documents executed between 1998 and 2006 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (the appellants) were void; and damages of Rs. 13 lakhs with interest at 24% per annum. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 636 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession, changing the physical features of the property, or creating any encumbrances.

The trial court allowed the application on 31 March 2026, restraining the appellants from interfering with possession, altering physical features, and raising constructions on the suit property until disposal of the main suit. The appellants — defendant Nos. 1 to 4 — challenged that order before the Division Bench.

The Appellants' Competing Documents and Prior Proceedings

The appellants placed before the trial court registered sale deeds, gift deeds, original pattadar passbooks, title deeds, adangals, 1-B Namuna registers, land acquisition proceedings, and an award of compensation in favour of the first appellant for a portion of the land in the same survey number. They also filed a separate interlocutory application, I.A. No. 142 of 2026 in I.A. No. 636 of 2025, seeking formal receipt of those documents. The trial court perused the documents during the hearing but did not refer to them in the impugned order and recorded that no documents were marked.

The appellants further pointed to earlier civil suits, O.S. Nos. 162 and 163 of 2006, filed before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, involving property in Sy. No. 555/1. In those suits, defendant Nos. 1 and 4 in the present case had filed written statements asserting their own possession and specifically acknowledging that an extent of Ac. 1.40 cents in Sy. No. 555/1 had originally belonged to Pagadala Nagaiah before successive transfers. The first plaintiff, who was a party defendant in those earlier suits, had remained ex parte. According to the appellants, he came forward with the present suit only after those earlier suits were disposed of.

Revenue proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer and orders in W.P. No. 39323 of 2023 and W.A. No. 21 of 2025 were also cited as having negated the foundation of the plaintiffs' prima facie case, but the trial court did not advert to them.

Three Legal Errors the Division Bench Identified

Violation of Rule 55: Multiple Reliefs in One Application

Rule 55 of the AP Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 provides that there shall be a separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. Where several reliefs are combined in one application, the court may direct the applicant to confine the application to one relief, unless the reliefs are consequential in nature.

The Division Bench found that the plaintiffs' application in I.A. No. 636 of 2025 sought three distinct reliefs: restraint against interference with possession; restraint against changing physical features; and restraint against creation of encumbrances. Rather than directing the plaintiffs to split the application or confine it to one relief, the trial court not only entertained all three but went further, granting a restraint against raising constructions — a direction not even sought in the application. The Bench held this was contrary to Rule 55 on its face, relying on the earlier decision in Supriya Cold Storage, Warangal v. K. Sambasiva Rao and Others, reported at 2006 SCC OnLine AP 298.

Non-Marking of Documents at the Interlocutory Stage

The trial court noted in the impugned order that no documents were marked, though documents had been filed by both sides and perused during the hearing. The Division Bench held this was impermissible. It traced the settled position through two Division Bench decisions of this Court.

In T. Bhoopal Reddy and Another v. Smt. K.R. Laxmi Bai and Another, reported at 1998 (1) A.P.L.J. 161 (HC), a Division Bench had disapproved the view that documents cannot be marked in interlocutory proceedings because Rule 115 of the Civil Rules of Practice is confined to trial exhibits. That Bench had directed that documents relied upon by petitioners in interlocutory applications be marked as the ‘P’ series and those by respondents as the ‘R’ series.

In B. Parijatham v. M. Kameshwari, reported at (2017) 5 ALD 348 (DB), a later Division Bench reiterated the same position and directed the High Court on the administrative side to issue a circular to subordinate courts, observing that despite the earlier authoritative pronouncement some courts were still not marking documents. The Division Bench in the present appeal found that the trial court's conduct fell squarely within this category of repeated non-compliance.

Finding of Possession Without Documentary Basis

Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the trial court's order were specifically extracted by the Division Bench. In those paragraphs, the trial court recorded that revenue documents such as the RSR, 10-1 accounts, pahani, adangal and ROR reflected the names of Nagaiah and Subbaiah, and that the plaintiffs being legal heirs had succeeded to possession, thereby establishing a prima facie case and balance of convenience. The trial court also recorded that the defendants' revenue documents did not reflect those names and that irreparable loss would result if defendants encroached.

The Division Bench found these findings unsustainable. No specific document was referred to or its contents discussed. The trial court merely stated in general terms that documents were filed and then drew conclusions. The Bench relied on Bhimavarapu Nageswaramma v. Bommu Siva Reddy, reported at 2022 SCC OnLine AP 71, for the proposition that “mere reference to the documents filed and the affidavits placed before the court does not satisfy the requirement of exercise of discretionary power in a judicial manner.”

The Bench also applied the standard from Poona Ram v. Moti Ram and Others, reported at (2019) 11 SCC 309, which requires a plaintiff asserting possessory title to demonstrate settled, effective, and undisturbed possession — not merely stray entries in revenue records. The trial court had not examined whether the plaintiffs' possession met this standard as on the date of institution of the suit, particularly given the registered sale transactions spanning 1927 to 2020 and the land acquisition award in favour of the first appellant.

Transfer of the Case to Another Officer

Senior counsel for the appellants urged the Division Bench to direct that the matter be assigned to a different presiding officer, on the ground that the trial court had received documents from the defendants but neither considered nor referred to them. Certain allegations were also sought to be advanced against the officer personally.

The Division Bench declined to entertain those allegations, noting they were not part of the pleadings. The parties were, however, left at liberty to approach the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, if they had any grievance regarding the conduct of the presiding officer, since the entrustment of cases rests purely within that domain.

Order

The Division Bench allowed C.M.A. No. 280 of 2026. The order dated 31 March 2026 in I.A. No. 636 of 2025 in O.S. No. 75 of 2025, passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa, was set aside.

The matter was remanded to the VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa, for fresh consideration of I.A. No. 636 of 2025. The trial court was directed to afford both parties an opportunity to place all relevant documentary evidence on record, to receive and evaluate that evidence, and to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. There was no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending in the appeal, if any, were closed as a sequel.