HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.921 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order – XLIII Rule – 1(r) of CPC is directed against the order made in I.A. No.185 of 2005 in O.S. No.23 of 2005 dated 05-09-2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil judge, Karimnagar, whereunder the application filed under Order – XXXIX Rules – 1 and 2 of CPC praying the Court to grant ad interim injunction against respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein restraining them from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit in the interest of justice and equity, was dismissed by vacating the interim order granted therein. 2. Appellant herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants respectively. 4. Plaintiff laid the suit in O.S. No.23 of 2005 for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the said suit, I.A. No.185 of 2005 was filed under Order - XXXIX Rules - 1 and 2 praying to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit and though ad interim injunction was granted initially on 09-02-2005, it was vacated while dismissing the application by the impugned order. Aggrieved of the same, this appeal is filed. 5. There is no necessity of going into all the details of the case. 6. On 03-11-2006, during the pendency of this appeal, though status quo existing as on that day was granted by this Court, it was vacated by order dated 01-11-2006, which reads as under: “ Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owners of the property and they deny the execution of agreement of sale dated 18-3-2004 in favour of first respondent. Further, the agreement of sale dated 21-4-2004 to which first respondent is a party, is also relied upon by the petitioner. Having regard to the rival claims of parties and the prima facie case and balance of convenience, I am not inclined to continue the order of status quo granted by this court on 03-11-2006. Accordingly, the order of status quo is vacated and the petition is dismissed. 7. In view of the above order, nothing survives in this appeal for further adjudication. 8. In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal directing the trial Court to expedite hearing of the suit and dispose of the same on its own merits. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No order as to cots. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J August 5, 2010. PV