THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.372 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellants and two others, by name Medapureddy Satyanarayana @ Chittodu and Medapureddy Mallayya Naidu filed O.S.No.82 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, through its judgment, dated 21.06.2007. The appellants filed A.S.Nos.178 of 2007 before the VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal through its judgment, dated 25.03.2011 and had set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It has remanded the matter to the trial Court with certain directions, such as that the appellants shall be entitled to amendment of the prayer in the suit to incorporate the one for recovery of possession, that the parties shall be entitled to adduce oral and documentary evidence. It was further directed that the parties shall not file any application for temporary injunction or for appointment of receiver. The appellants feel aggrieved by the condition prohibiting filing of an application under Order XL C.P.C. Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that once the matter is remanded to the trial Court, the lower Appellate Court cannot impose conditions, disabling them to seek appropriate remedy. The suit was initially filed for the relief of perpetual injunction. It is during the stage of appeal, that efforts were made to convert the same into the one for recovery of possession. The applications were ordered and the lower Appellate Court has remanded the matter to the trial Court, since recording of evidence on the plea as to recovery of possession became necessary. It may be true that an Appellate Court must leave the matter to the trial Court, whenever an order of remand is passed. However, the law does not preclude the lower Appellate Court from issuing certain directions, in the interests of the parties as well as for expeditious disposal of the suit. It is not the case of the appellants herein that they had the benefit of the appointment of receiver during the pendency of the suit. It is alleged that the possession of the property was taken over by the Mandal Revenue Officer in exercise of power under Section 144 (5) of Cr.P.C. The remedy in such case, is elsewhere. An application under Order XL C.P.C., would not be of any help to the parties. It would contribute to the enormous delay. The suit is of the year 2004. With a view to ensure expeditious disposal of the suit, the lower Appellate Court made an observation that the parties shall not be entitled to file any application for appointment of receiver. No exception can be taken to the same, particularly when according to the appellants neither themselves nor the respondents are in possession of the property. An expeditious disposal of the suit would pave the way for the parties for effective enjoyment of their rights. Hence, the C.M.A. is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the suit by the end of December, 2011. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 07.06.2011 GJ