THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5555 OF 2010 DATED:08.04.2011 Between: Sunkara Somaraju & another. .... PETITIONERS And Sri Kota Durga Educational Society, Rep.by its Secretary, Srikakulam District & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 04.08.2010, in C.M.A.No.4 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, wherein the appeal filed by the 1st respondent herein-plaintiff was allowed, setting aside the order, dated 12.04.2006, in I.A.No.181 of 2006 in O.S.No.23 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. None appears for the 1st respondent. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the 2nd respondent-1st defendant and the petitioners-defendants 2 and 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. According to the 1st respondent-plaintiff, he purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed- Ex.A1, dated 17.03.2005, from Karthaka Mercy Phinibai. He claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land ever since the date of purchase under Ex.A1. Petitioners herein-defendants 2 and 3 would contend that the 2nd respondent-1st defendant is the owner of the schedule land having purchased from the same vendor-Karthaka Mercy Phinibai under agreement of sale and filed the suit- O.S.No.79 of 1995 and that the said suit was decreed and execution proceedings were also initiated for obtaining registered sale deed through process of Court in E.P.No.154 of 2005. Petitioners-defendants 2 and 3 would further contend that they are the tenants in respect of the schedule land having taken the same on lease from the owner-2nd respondent. 1st respondent-plaintiff filed I.A.No.118 of 2006 for grant of temporary injunction. By order, dated 12.04.2006, the said application was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge. Aggrieved by the same, 1st respondent filed C.M.A.No.4 of 2006. By impugned order, dated 04.08.2010, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the said appeal and granted temporary injunction. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition by the petitioners-defendants 2 and 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that the earlier suit for specific performance was already decreed in favour of the 1st defendant. 5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff would contend that the wife of the 2nd respondent herein by name Nagamani filed a suit-O.S.No.42 of 2006 for permanent injunction against the original owner-Karthaka Mercy Phinibai and her daughter- Karthaka Swarnalatha and the 1st respondent herein- plaintiff and that the said suit was dismissed and an application-I.A.No.766 of 2008 filed for restoration of the said suit was also dismissed and the appeal preferred against the said order is pending. 6. The present suit is one for mere injunction filed in the year, 2006. Having regard to the fact that five years have since elapsed since filing of the suit, it is considered that instead of considering the merits of the case it would be just and proper to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and till such time, status quo obtaining as on today in respect of the schedule property shall be maintained by both parties. 7. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th April, 2011. Tsy