HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3592 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order-dated 25.2.2009 passed in C.M.A.No. 36 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the Suit and they filed I.A.No. 786 of 2005 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the main suit. That petition was allowed holding that ad-interim injunction granted by the Court on 28.7.2005 is made absolute till the disposal of the main suit. Aggrieved by the same, respondent-defendant preferred C.M.A under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC seeking to set aside the order and decree dated 9.3.2007 passed in I.A.No. 786 of 2005 in O.S.No. 228 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Jduge, Bheemunipatnam. That appeal was allowed setting aside the decree and order dated 9.3.2007 passed in I.A.No. 786 of 2005 in O.S.No. 228 of 2005 holding that the trial Court has committed serious error in observing that the finding on the possession of the parties over the suit schedule property is premature and even for granting interim injunction, the trial Court is supposed to give its own finding basing on the evidence placed before it and the observations, if any, made by the trial court in interlocutory applications are not final and binding in the trial as it is a settled law. Be that as it may, one of the ingredients to be satisfied for granting interim injunction is possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the trial Court gave a finding that the relief sought in I.A No. 786 of 2005, is premature. Even for granting interim injunction, the trial court is supposed to give its own reasons or finding basing on the evidence placed before it. The observations, made if any, in an interlocutory application are not final. Therefore, the appellate Court rightly allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree and order dated 9.3.2007. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the Suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 19.11.2010 KA