IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :5821 of 2009 Between: Shahzad Begum ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Anwarullah and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5821 OF 2009 ORDER: Aggrieved by order, dated 5.11.2009 in I.A.No.2567 of 2009 in C.M.A.No.103 of 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present revision petition has been filed. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. Originally, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed the application in I.A.No.1897 of 2007 seeking to grant ad interim injunction against defendants 6 to 8 restraining them and their men from changing the existing nature of the suit premises or alienating the same till disposal of the suit. The Court below having observed that the property has been standing in the name of the 1st defendant ever since it was gifted by late Zainab Begum and that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case about her joint possession over the suit schedule property, dismissed the application. Having aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal in C.M.A.No.103 of 2009. Along with the appeal, the plaintiff filed the application in I.A.No.2567 of 2009 seeking to grant ad interim injunction against defendants 6 to 8 restraining them and their men from changing the existing nature of the suit premises. The lower appellate Court granted Status quo. Subsequently, when the said application was posted for orders, the plaintiff was called absent and hence, the lower appellate Court passed the order under revision vacating the status quo order. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the plaintiff. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The order under revision goes to show that as there was no representation on behalf of the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court passed the order under revision. It is not on merits. If the plaintiff is aggrieved, she can move the appellate Court by filing an appropriate application. The approach of the plaintiff is a premature one. In these circumstances, I feel that the present revision is not maintainable. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is granted to the plaintiff to file an appropriate application before the lower appellate Court within a period of two weeks from today. Till such time, there shall be interim stay of the order impugned in this revision petition. If the plaintiff fails to comply with the condition stipulated above, the order impugned herein becomes operative. Subject to the above observation, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 10th December, 2009 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5821 OF 2009 10.12.2009