A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan1 , it is no more res integra that the availability of an alternative remedy cannot be brushed aside or overlooked in the absence of any failure on the part of the Court to expedite the hearing of the application seeking vacating of the interim injunction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

AND

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.292, 293 & 301 of 2024

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Narendar)

Heard Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel,

along with Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant in C.M.A.No.292 of 2024; Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati,

learned Senior Counsel, along with Sri Venkat Sailendra G., learned

counsel for the appellant in C.M.A.No.293 of 2024; and Sri

G.V.N.R.S.S.S. Vara Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant in

C.M.A.No.301 of 2024. Also heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned

Senior Counsel, along with Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned

counsel for the respondent in all the three appeals.

2. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels and having

perused the order impugned, it is seen that the order is an ex parte

order injuncting the appellants and other defendants from exercising

their right to speak about certain issues and it is also the admitted

case that the appellants have filed an appropriate application to

vacate the ex parte order.

2024:APHC:17843

2

GN,J & VGKR,J

C.M.A.Nos.292, 293& 301 of 2024

3. It is also fairly stated before the Court that the appellants

herein, who are the applicants before the trial Court seeking vacation

of the interim injunction, have also completed their submissions in

support of their vacate stay applications and that the applications are

listed today to hear the plaintiff.

4. In that view of the matter and in the light of the law laid down

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S.

Chellappan1

, it is no more res integra that the availability of an

alternative remedy cannot be brushed aside or overlooked in the

absence of any failure on the part of the Court to expedite the

hearing of the application seeking vacating of the interim injunction.

5. In the instant case, the vacate stay applications preferred by

the applicants seeking vacating of the injunction order impugned

have been taken up by the trial Court in right earnest.

6. In that view of the matter and this being a case which is

squarely covered by the law laid down in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu

(supra), these civil miscellaneous appeals are disposed of with a

direction to the trial Court to expedite the hearing and disposal of the

vacate stay applications preferred by the applicants as expeditiously

as possible, at any rate, on or before 08.05.2024.

1

(2000) 7 SCC 695

2024:APHC:17843

3

GN,J & VGKR,J

C.M.A.Nos.292, 293& 301 of 2024

7. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed. No order as to costs.

8. Registry is directed to communicate operative portion of the

order to the jurisdictional Court by e-mail.

9. Learned counsels are also permitted to inform the trial Court

about the order passed by way of a Memo.

____________________

JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

______________________________

JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Dt: 03.05.2024

IBL

2024:APHC:17843

4

GN,J & VGKR,J

C.M.A.Nos.292, 293& 301 of 2024

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

AND

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.292, 293 & 301 of 2024

Date: 03.05.2024

IBL

2024:APHC:17843