Trial Courts Must Decided Ad-Interim Injunctions Within 30 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC

Ad-interim injunctions cannot linger indefinitely while defendants await relief, as the Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirms the mandatory nature of statutory timelines for disposing of interlocutory applications. In a sharp reminder of procedural discipline, the Court held that the failure to record reasons for delays beyond the thirty-day limit constitutes a breach of the procedural mandate aimed at preventing judicial overreach.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti, presiding as a single-judge bench, heard a civil revision petition filed by a defendant aggrieved by the prolonged pendency of an injunction application. The petitioner sought a direction to the trial court for the expedited disposal of the interim application in light of the existing judicial backlogs and administrative circulars issued by the High Court Registry.

The Mandate of Order XXXIX Rule 3-A

The High Court emphasized that the trial court's power to grant ex-parte or ad-interim injunctions is coupled with a strict duty to finalize such proceedings quickly. The Court highlighted that Rule 3-A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not a mere directory provision but a legislative command designed to protect the rights of parties affected by ex-parte orders.

The Court has the following directions:

"The trial court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.193 of 2025, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order, keeping in view the mandate contained under Order XXXIX Rule 3-A C.P.C. as also Nama Ramaprasad vs Kristam Reddy Raju."

Court's Observations on Procedural Delay

During the proceedings, the High Court noted that although the ad-interim injunction was granted as early as March 2025 and the defendant had promptly filed a counter-affidavit, the application remained pending for over a year. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that impleading new parties or filing amended pleadings should not unnecessarily stall the determination of urgent interim reliefs.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Order XXXIX Rule 3-A mandates that where an injunction is granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall endeavour to dispose of the application within thirty days from the date when the injunction was granted. If the Court is unable to do so, it shall record reasons for such inability."

Background:

The dispute originated from O.S.No.68 of 2025, where the respondent/plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction to prevent eviction from the suit property. On March 10, 2025, the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kavali, granted an ad-interim injunction. Despite the defendant (petitioner herein) filing a counter-affidavit and declaring readiness for the enquiry, the matter was repeatedly adjourned. The petitioner eventually approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, citing Nama Ramaprasad vs Kristam Reddy Raju and a Registry circular regarding the expedition of old matters. The High Court, after verifying the status via digital communication from the trial court, found that the delay persisted despite the defendant's cooperation, leading to the current directions for time-bound disposal.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 638/2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:APHC:29153
Case Title: Talapala Rajeswari V. Mannemala Sukumar Reddy
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): V Sai Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Komara Prudhvi Raj, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 1563