IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURS DAY, THE TWENTY SECOND (22ND) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3814 of 2011 Between: Gade Annapurnamma & another … Petitioners And: Punnana Divya … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3814 of 2011 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.04.2011 in CMA No.5 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondent herein-plaintiff was ordered directing both parties to maintain status-quo with regard to possession over the schedule land as on 30.04.2010 and further directing the trial court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule land. According to the plaintiff, she became absolute owner of the suit land by virtue of registered settlement dated 05.01.2010 executed in her favour by one Yedla Sreeramulu and ever since she and her husband have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, that she applied to the Tahsildar, Santakaviti for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deeds in her favour. She alleges that the defendants without having any right or title over the suit land have been proclaiming in the village that they would occupy the same forcibly. The petitioners-defendants, on the other hand would contend that they have been in possession of the suit land since 1995 having obtained a registered sale deed from the husband of the first respondent and father of 2nd respondent. They further contended that the registered settlement dated 05.01.2010 allegedly executed by Y.Sreeramulu in favour of the plaintiff is not true and valid and binding and it is a fabricated document. According to them by the date of the document, the said Sreeramulu had no subsisting interest in the suit property as he has already alienated the same. The petitioners/defendants further alleges that the respondent-plaintiff never resided in the suit village and she was always residing at Chirala, Ongole district, since more than 30 years and she was never in possession of the suit land. 4. The respondent-plaintiff filed IA No.432 of 2010 for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit and the petitioners/defendants filed a counter, opposing the same. During enquiry, Ex.P.1 to P.3 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.R.1 to R.19 were marked on behalf of the defendant. On a consideration of the material available on record, the trial court held that the plaintiff failed to establish any prima-facie case or balance of convenience in her favour and on the other hand, there i s prima-facie case in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, petition for temporary injunction was dismissed by order dated 13.09.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed CMA No.5 of 2010 and by impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam directed both parties to maintain status-quo with regard to possession over the suit land as on 30.04.2010 the date of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed by the defendants. 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Senior Civil Judge disposed of the appeal, mainly on the basis of a report said to have been made by the learned counsel for both parties that status-quo may be ordered to be maintained with a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit as early as possible. It is further stated in the impugned order that in view of the representation made by both counsel, there is no need to probe whether the order passed by the trial court is proper or not. Though the contentions of both parties have been referred to, the appeal was however disposed of on the basis of the alleged representation made by both counsel. 6. Learned counsel neither for the petitioners-defendants would submit that no such concession was made by the petitioners nor any consent given by them for passing such an order directing both parties to maintain status-quo. In support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners filed an affidavit dated 12.11.2011 of the first petitioner-Gade Annapurnamma, wherein she stated that she made enquiry from her counsel whether he has given any undertaking before the trial court to maintain status-quo and that her counsel has not given consent for passing the order o f status-quo. In view of the said affidavit filed by the first petitioner-first defendant herein, to the effect that no such consent was given by the petitioners or their counsel for passing an order of status quo, the impugned order which is passed on the basis of the alleged consent, but not on merits, is not sustainable. 7. As the learned Senior Civil Judge has not passed the order duly recording findings on merits with reference to the documents filed by both sides as to who is in possession of the suit land, it is considered just and proper to remit the matter to the learned Senior Civil Judge for fresh consideration and disposal of the appeal in accordance with law. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam for fresh disposal within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 22.12.2011 bss