THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.912 OF 2000 Dated 12th August, 2009 Between: Mohd Shareef and another …Appellants And N.Yadamma and two others …Respondents Counsel for the appellants :Smt B.G.Uma Devi Counsel for the respondents :Sri M.Venkateswara Rao The Court made the following JUDGMENT: The appellants filed O.S.No.143 of 2000 in the Court of II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 22.10.1994 and for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. They have also filed I.A.No.166 of 2000 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the appellants over the suit schedule property. When the I.A was listed for hearing, a representation was made on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the appellants are laying roads over the suit schedule properties. Taking note of the same, the trial Court passed an order dated 21.03.2000 directing both the parties to maintain status quo. The I.A was directed to be called on 28.03.2000. The appellants feel aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2000. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Way back on 11.04.2000, this Court granted an order of interim suspension of the order under appeal. Subsequently, a direction was issued on 21.04.2000 to the trial Court directing it not to proceed with I.A.No.166 of 2000. Thereafter these orders were vacated on 24.04.2000. The trial Court was permitted to proceed with I.A.No.166 of 2000. The purport of the order under appeal is that the parties shall maintain status quo. This was an interim measure, pending the disposal of I.A.No.166 of 2000. The trial Court was permitted to decide that application on its own merits. By this time, the I.A might have been disposed of, if not the suit itself. Therefore, nothing remains to be decided in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, and it is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated 12th August, 2009 vrn