THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1727 OF 2008 DATED:23.03.2011 Between: B.Varalakshmi. .... PETITIONER And P.Manohar Goud & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 14.09.2007, in C.M.A.No.57 of 2007 on the file of the learned VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, Fast Track Court, Rangareddy District, wherein temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner herein. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondents herein for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land of 270 sq.yards in plot Nos.179 in Sy.Nos.588, 589, 597 and 606 of Dammaiguda village, Keesara village. According to the petitioner, the said land originally belonged to one R.Prakash and the petitioner purchased the same under registered sale deed, dated 15.02.2002, from the 2nd respondent, who was the General Power of Attorney holder of the original owner- R.Prakash, and after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat the petitioner constructed a house on the plot bearing No.6-70/35 and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent, without having any right, title or interest over the property, is threatening to dispossess the petitioner. Hence, petitioner filed the suit for injunction. Petitioner also filed I.A.No.776 of 2005 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 ad 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction and ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, 1st respondent filed a counter and opposed the petition. After due enquiry, the trial Court by order, dated 01.12.2006, allowed the said application and made the interim injunction absolute. Aggrieved by the same, 1st respondent filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.57 of 2007. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Medchal by the impugned order, dated 14.09.2007, allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. Thereupon, petitioner-plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. While admitting the Civil Revision Petition, this Court by order, dated 24.05.2008, in C.R.P.M.P.No.2273 of 2008, directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the plaint schedule property as on that date. The trial Court while granting the order of injunction has perused Exs.A1 to A7, marked on behalf of the petitioner and Exs.B1 to B13 marked on behalf of the respondent. The appellate Court on reappraisal of the documentary evidence available on record reversed the finding of the trial Court. The suit itself is one for injunction filed in the year, 2006. The interim order of status quo granted by this Court is in force. At that stage, five years after filing of the suit, it is considered imprudent to discuss the documentary evidence available on record in depth inasmuch as the same material falls for consideration during the trial also. Under those circumstances, instead of passing an order on merits and in view of the order of status quo granted earlier, it is considered that a direction be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself at an early date. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of status quo granted by this Court earlier on 25.04.2008 shall remain in force till the disposal of the suit. 5. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd March, 2011. Tsy