(Prayer: Appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against orders pleased to allow this second appeal and to set aside Decree and Judgment dated 09-01- 2026 passed in A.S.No.16 of 2025 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli by allowing this appeal and also to set-a-side the Decree and Judgment dated 15-10-2024 passed in O.S.No.242 of 2020 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Anakapalli and pass)

Common Judgment

1. Heard Sri K. Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the appellant, and Ms. M. Aruna, learned counsel representing Sri V.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellant in S.A. No.178 of 2026 is the plaintiff in O.S. No.242 of 2020, which was filed for permanent injunction, being a tenant, restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff without following due process of law. The said suit was dismissed by Decree and Judgment dated 15.10.2024 by the Court of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant herein preferred First Appeal No.16 of 2025 before the Court of the learned X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli, which was also dismissed with costs on 09.01.2026, affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court on the same grounds, namely that the plaintiff, being in illegal possession and enjoyment of the property, was not entitled to a decree of prohibitory permanent injunction.

4. It is further noticed that the suit preferred by the respondent herein/owner in O.S. No.36 of 2022, before the Court of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, seeking to evict the appellant herein from the property, was decreed in favour of the respondent herein vide Decree and Judgment dated 15.10.2024.

5. Against the said decree, the appellant herein preferred A.S. No.15 of 2025 before the Court of the learned X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli, and the said appeal was also dismissed with costs vide Decree and Judgment dated 09.01.2026, affirming the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant herein also preferred S.A. No.191 of 2026.

6. On perusal of the entire material placed on record in both appeals, this Court does not find any substantial question of law warranting admission of these Second Appeals against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that some time may be granted to vacate the schedule property, and since an execution petition has been filed, protection may be granted for a few weeks for evicting from the schedule property.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the said request, submitting that both First Appeals were dismissed on 09.01.2026 itself, and that even after a lapse of eight (8) months, the appellant is seeking further time for eviction. She further submitted that since an Execution Petition has been filed for delivery of the property, the appellant does not deserve any protection from eviction.

9. In view of the submissions made, since this Court does not find any substantial question of law in these matters, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed even at the stage of admission. However, to meet the ends of justice, and in light of the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is ready to vacate the schedule property within a short time, it is deemed appropriate to dismiss the present appeals while granting two (2) weeks' time from today to the appellant to vacate the schedule property, failing which the plaintiff/respondent herein may proceed against the defendant/appellant according to law. It is made clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to file any petition for extension of time to vacate the schedule property.

10. With the above observations, both Second Appeal Nos.178 and 191 of 2026 are dismissed before admission. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any, stand closed.