THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. No. 3034 of 2011 Dated. 23–08-2011 Between: Tiyyala Venkat Ramna Murthy and others. …Petitioners Vs. Chilla Rama Rao Reddy and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 3034 of 2011 Dated: 23-08-2011 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Prabhala Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in O.S.No. 258 of 2006, pending before the learned I-Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam; and Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel for respondent No.12. The respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein filed the suit for a permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property; an extent of Ac.02-55 cents in T.S.No. 52/1 B 1(A) of Block No.4 of Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam. The revision petitioners and respondent Nos. 10 and 11, the latter being defendant Nos. 3 and 6 in the suit, are resisting the suit claim, asserting title to the suit schedule property as well as possession as on the date of the suit. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 1821 of 2006 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking interim injunction. By the order dated 20-04-2009, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo as on date of filing of the suit. In this order, the lower Court observed that while defendant Nos. 1 to 6 entered appearance on 19-01-2007, only on 04-06- 2007 respondent Nos. 2 to 6 filed their counters; meanwhile the 1st respondent died and the matter was posted for taking steps from time to time and ultimately since no steps were taken, the matter was posted for inquiry. Thereafter, both parties were reporting not ready and only on 04-08-2008 learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 (the revision petitioners herein) had filed a vakalath. Even thereafter as the parties were not ready, the matter was being posted for inquiry from time to time; on 22-10-2008 the matter was heard in part and finally it was concluded by the then Presiding Officer on 03-02-2009 and was posted for orders on 09-02-2009 and thereafter to 18-02-2009, 27-02-2009 and 13-03-2009. Since orders were not ready on 13-03-2009 and the then Presiding Officer was transferred, the present Officer has taken up the matter, reopened the trial of the suit and posted it to 20-04-2009. In these circumstances and in view of the persistent disinclination of the parties to proceed with the trial of the suit, by the order dated 20-04- 2009 in the application for interim injunction – I.A.No. 1821 of 2006, the Court below observed that it would dispose of the main suit itself and closed the application – I.A.No. 1821 of 2006, directing both parties to maintain status-quo as on date of filing of the suit. The revision petitioners filed I.A.Nos. 716, 717 and 253 of 2011 against the respondents impleaded in the respective applications; for violation of the orders of status quo dated 20-04-2009 under Order XXIX Rule 2-A CPC; for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the alleged constructions on the schedule property; and for police protection. As the Court below was proceeding with the trial of the suit without disposing of the aforementioned interlocutory applications, this revision is filed (by the defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in the suit) for a direction to the Court below to dispose of the interlocutory applications before taking up trial of the suit. Elaborate reasons have been recorded in the order dated 20-04-2009 in I.A.No. 1821 of 2006 setting out refusal of the learned counsel for the respective parties in proceeding with the trial of the suit of the year 2006 seeking a bare injunction. In the circumstances, the relief claimed in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution (viz., to direct the Court below to dispose of I.A.Nos. 716; 717 and 253 of 2011 in O.S.No. 258 of 2006 on the file of the learned I- Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, before the disposal of the main suit O.S.No. 258 of 2006), does not commend acceptance. Since the I.A.Nos. 716; 717 and 253 of 2011, which are independent applications, must be disposed of and having regard to the fact that the main suit for a bare injunction (of the year 2006) is still pending adjudication, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of this revision directing the learned I-Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to expeditiously and in any event within a period of three (3) months from today, dispose of O.S.No. 258 of 2006, if necessary, on a day to day basis. I.A.Nos. 716; 717 and 253 of 2011 in O.S.No. 258 of 2006 shall be disposed of simultaneously with the suit. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 23-08-2011 Pvks/*