IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3629 OF 2011 Between : Sri Mohammad Yusuf ... PETITIONER A N D Sri Sutapalli Durga Prasad and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3629 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 16.06.2011 in I.A.No.466 of 2010 in A.S.No.25 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, whereunder and whereby, in an application filed under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to suspend the operation of judgment and decree, dated 03.03.2010 in O.S.No.557 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, the Court below directed both parties to maintain status quo and use ‘C.D.E.F’. passage for ingress and egress only without making any construction or obstruction by each other. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without claiming a declaration of easementary right, the suit itself is not maintainable; that the disputed passage is exclusively belonging to the petitioner; that respondent No.1 herein purchased the property from the petitioner herein whereunder separate pathway was earmarked for ingress and egress; that the impugned order is nothing but pre judging the case and hence he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. Respondent No.1 herein /plaintiff filed O.S.No.557 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner herein / Defendant No.2 from interfering with the ‘CDEF’ marked puntha of the plaint plan. Pending the suit, Respondent No.1 also filed I.A.No.3093 of 2008 for interim injunction and the same was dismissed on 02.06.2009 on merits. On 03.03.2010, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed A.S.No.25 of 2010. Pending the appeal, he preferred the above Interlocutory Application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC to suspend the operation of judgment and decree, dated 03.03.2010 in O.S.No.557 of 2008. After hearing both parties, the Court below directed both parties to maintain status quo. 4. The Court below directed both parties to maintain status quo with regard to usage of the passage. Whether the suit itself is not maintainable or not; whether there is separate passage meant for usage of respondent No.1 and his men by virtue sale deed or not; whether how long the passage in dispute is being used by respondent No.1 and his men, are matters required to be decided in the appeal itself. Considering the evidence on record, the appellate court ordered status quo to be maintained by both parties. This order would not cause any harm or inconvenience to the petitioner as usage of the passage is only for ingress and egress. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order in view of the fact that the substantive rights of the parties have to be determined in the appeal itself. 5. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Since the appeal is of the year 2010 the Court below is directed to dispose of the appeal subject to other part-heard and old cases. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU. J AUGUST 30, 2011. YVL