THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.80 of 2009 JUDGMENT: Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.999 of 2008 in the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the appellants and respondents 3 and 4, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that they purchased a plot of about 460 square yards, each, situated at Devarakondanagar at Shaikpet Village of Hyderabad (Urban), adjacent to Jubilee Hills, through separate sale deeds, dated 31.07.1996, from Gorenkala Pentaiah and 39 others, through their G.P.A. Respondents 3 and 4 were said to be the owners of the neighbouring plots. Alleging that the appellants and respondents 3 and 4 were making certain demarcations, in their attempt to take possession of the land, respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit. They have also filed I.A.No.561 of 2008, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., almost with same averments. The I.A. was opposed, mainly by the appellants herein. In their counter-affidavit, they pleaded that an extent of 900 square yards was purchased by them from the 3rd respondent herein, through a sale deed, dated 07.04.2007. They denied the allegation, as to interference with the possession of respondents 1 and 2. The boundaries, mentioned in the suit schedule, were also disputed. Through its order, 23.09.2008, the trial Court disposed of the I.A., directing the parties to it, to maintain status quo, till the disposal of the suit. The appellants challenge the said order. Heard Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri A.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 is one, for injunction simplicitor. Their effort is to protect their possession over the suit schedule property. Their grievance was mainly against respondents 3 and 4. The appellants came into picture as purchasers from respondent No.3. The trial Court took note of the fact that the plots of land, said to have been purchased by respondents 1 and 2, on the one hand, and the appellants herein, on the other hand; are different. All the same, to protect the interests of the parties, it directed to maintain status quo. The suit schedule property is a vacant plot. The order of status quo does not cause any serious hardship to the parties. On the other hand, if any construction is brought into existence, several complications would arise. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. However, since the prevention of any activity over the suit land, for a very long time, would lead to several complications, the trial Court may be required to expedite the disposal of the suit. The parties undertake to extend their cooperation for early disposal of the suit. Hence, the C.M.A. is dismissed, upholding the order under appeal. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit, by the end of January, 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:18.08.2009. GJ