THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2388 & 2588 OF 2010 COMOMON ORDER: 1 As the parties in these two revisions are common and the matters before the courts below are suit and counter suit, these two revisions are disposed of by this common order. 2 For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the courts below. 3 Plaintiff instituted O.S.No.111 of 2009 for perpetual injunction and in the said suit he also filed I.A.No.235 of 2009 for grant of temporary injunction. Similarly the 2nd defendant in the said suit also instituted O.S.No.115 of 2009 for perpetual injunction and he also filed an I.A.No.250 of 2009 for grant of temporary injunction. In view of the commonness in both the matters, the trial court heard these two I.As i.e. I.A.No.235 of 2009 and I.A.No.250 of 2009 and passed a common order dated 06.08.2009 directing both the parties to maintain status quo existing as on that date. 4 Plaintiff questioning the order dated 06.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.235 of 2009 filed CMA No.9 of 2009. Similarly the defendant also filed C.M.A.No.10 of 2009 questioning the order passed in I.A.No.250 of 2009. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy having considered the said submissions made by both the counsel while dismissing both the C.M.As vacated the said order of status quo granted by the trial court in I.A.No.235 of 2009. The same is questioned by filing these two revisions. 5 The learned counsel for the Plaintiff Mr. V. Hanumantharao tried to impress upon this court stating that there are clear admissions made by the defendants i.e. Plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2009 establishing the fact that the Plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property and as such the court below instead of granting the order of status quo, ought to have granted an injunction as prayed for. It is his further contention that the court below erred in vacating the order of status quo passed in I.A.No.235 of 2009 in the appeal filed by him. 6 Heard. 7 This court is unable to go into the facts as narrated by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff Mr. V. Hanumantharao for the reason that if any finding or observation is made in these two revisions, it may adversely affect either of the parties during the course of trial. 8 I am totally in agreement with the submission made by Mr. V.Hanumantharao, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, with regard to the orders passed in C.M.A.No.9 of 2009. Apparently the trial court passed an order of status quo in I.A.No.235 of 2009 and the Plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.9 of 2009 stating that the court below ought to have granted an order of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. If the court below is not convinced with the contentions put forth by the counsel for the plaintiff in CMA No.9 of 2009 it can at best dismiss the said appeal but cannot go beyond the same for the reason that the other side has not chosen to file an appeal questioning the said order of status quo. In the absence of another appeal by the other side, in the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff the court either should allow the said appeal or dismiss the same but cannot vacate the order of status quo passed by the trial court. For this reason the said order passed by the court below i.e. dismissing the C.M.A.No.9 of 209 appears to be incorrect. Accordingly the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy is hereby set aside. 9 As the suits are for injunction simplicitor and they have been instituted about a year back, the trail court is directed to decide them at the earliest, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time the parties shall maintain status quo as was in existence on 06.08.2009. 10 These two revisions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. -------------- 27.08.2010 Kvsn