HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.No.4845 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District in C.M.A.No.16 of 2006 dated 19.02.2007, confirming the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayanapet, in I.A.No.142 of 2006 in O.S.No.40 of 2006 dated 08.12.2006. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent- plaintiff (since died) filed O.S.No.40 of 2006 before the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanapet, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners and respondents 7 to 10 herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.142 of 2006 seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court on a consideration of the entire material available on record allowed the said application granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants preferred C.M.A.No.16 of 2006 before the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet and the same was dismissed, on 19.02.2007, confirming order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayanapet, in I.A.No.142 of 2006. Questioning the order, the present revision is filed by the 1st defendant (since died) and 2nd defendant. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per pahanies for the year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, the 1st defendant-Peda Narasimhulu (since died) was a co-sharer and as such the injunction cannot be granted against a co- sharer. He further submits that the plaintiff - B.Ediga sanjanna (since died) was not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit. Learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 6, while supporting the orders of the Courts below, contended that the Courts below have taken into consideration the aforesaid contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and that on a consideration of the entire material available on record granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, the said orders are perfectly justified and it needs no interference. Apparently, the suit was filed for injunction simplicitor in the year 2006. If there is no stay of the proceedings, the said suit, in the normal circumstances, should have been disposed of long back. However, in view of the interim stay of the proceedings in O.S.No.40 of 2006, the said suit is still pending. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of the suit, I feel it appropriate, in the interest of justice to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the trial Court is directed to take into consideration the aforesaid contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for both sides while disposing of the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 02-06-2010 Gsn.