Party Can't Be Granted Interim Relief Merely Because Opposing Counsel Failed To Answer Court's Query: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot succeed on the weakness of the opposite party's case and must stand on the strength of its own case, observing that interim relief cannot be granted merely because the opposite party's counsel failed to answer a legal query posed by the Court. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 132]

Accordingly, it set aside a Single Judge's interim order in a land dispute, holding that the writ petitioners had to independently establish a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta allowed the appeal challenging the interim order passed in a writ petition arising under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

The Court observed:

"It would not be out of place to mention the settled principle of law that the plaintiff in a suit should not succeed on the weakness of the defendant's case. He has to stand on his own legs. Similarly, unless a case for grant of interim order was made out, the interim order could not be passed only on the failure of the respondents' counsel to state the grounds on which Writ of Certiorari could be issued. The respondents had not challenged the orders. It was for the writ petitioner to prima facie satisfy the grounds for issuance of a writ of Certiorari and the grounds involved in the writ petition and thereby make out a case for the grant of interim relief.

There is also no consideration of the case of the writ petitioners or of the respondents, even prima facie."

The appeal arose from an interim order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition challenging orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

At the admission stage, the Single Judge granted an interim direction for six weeks after recording that the respondents' counsel was unable to answer a query regarding the three grounds for exercising certiorari jurisdiction.

Before the Division Bench, the appellants contended that the interim order was unsustainable as it had been granted solely because their counsel could not answer the Court's query, without examining whether the writ petitioners had made out a prima facie case for interim relief.

Accepting the contention, the Bench held that the Single Judge had granted interim relief without any prima facie consideration of the respective cases of the parties or the grounds for issuance of a writ of certiorari.

It therefore set aside the interim order and directed the Single Judge to reconsider the pending application for interim relief after hearing all parties.

The Court clarified that if the writ petitioners required urgent consideration of their interim prayer, they were at liberty to seek an appropriate hearing before the Single Judge.

Case Title: Sri Kudithi Gurayya & Anr. v. Smt. Akula Gowri Sudha & Ors.

Case No.: W.A. No. 483 of 2026

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri V. V. Satish

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Revenue; Javvaji Sarath Chandra

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 132