IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 3244 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: 1 K. Ramalinga Reddy S/o Muni Reddy R/o Thalambedu Village & Post Chittoor Town & District 2 V. Santhamma W/o late V. Arunachalam Reddy R/o Thalambedu Village & Post Chittoor Town & District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND A. Subbarayudu Naidu S/o A. Munuswamy Naidu R/o Chinthalagunta Village Thalambedu Post Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent : MR.M.VENKATA RAMANA REDDY FOR R The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/CRP{TSSB} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3244 2009 ORDER: Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.509/2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and the said suit was filed for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the A- schedule property. The trial Court initially granted an ad interim injunction in I.A.512/2007 in O.S.509/2007 and thereafter the said order has been modified to that of status quo by order dated 12.11.2007. Aggrieved by the said order dated 12.11.2007, the respondent herein filed CMA.2/2008 on the file of the learned District Judge, Chittoor and the same was allowed by order dated 03.07.2009 setting aside the order of the trial Court in I.A.512/2007. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed. It is the case of the petitioners herein that in fact the respondent herein filed O.S.981/2007 and obtained an order of status quo in respect of Ac.1.28 cents in Sy.No.20/6. The petitioners herein filed the said application for the grant of temporary injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac.2.52 cents within the same survey number 20/8 and Ac.3.13 cents in Sy.No.14. Admittedly, the petitioners have not made out any case as to whether any cart track was existed in the plaint A-schedule property as per the findings of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. The Advocate Commissioner when appointed initially, he has expressed his inability to find out as to whether a cart track exists in the land of the petitioners or the respondent. It is stated that the order of status quo was granted till the Commissioner re-visits and files his report. It is stated that for non- payment of the process and the commissioner’s fee I.A.932/2007 was dismissed on 09.05.2008. Thus, there is no record to show that there was a cart track existing in the plaint A-schedule property of the petitioners, but however, it is a matter of evidence yet to be established during course of the trial. Having regard to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court rightly set aside the order of status quo on the ground that the Advocate Commissioner could not locate the cart track and as I.A.932/2007 was dismissed on 09.05.2008. The petitioners/plaintiffs shall plead and establish that the cart track was existing as on the date of filing of the suit. In the absence of existence of the cart track, the lower appellate Court rightly vacated the order of status quo. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 07.08.2009 Dsr