IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5713 OF 2010 Between: Gadebiona Venkanna …Petitioner A n d Mukkera Ramulu and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5713 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.10.2009 in I.A.No.128 of 2009 in O.S.No.89 of 2009, on the file of the Special Assistant Agent & Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein, the plaintiffs, under Rule 42 (c) of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924, for interim injunction was allowed, granting interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with the respondents possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that in respect of the same land which is in item No.2 of the plaint schedule, an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.15/1 situate in Nuguru village, the petitioner herein earlier filed a suit O.S.No.238 of 2004 against the respondents herein for a permanent injunction and in the said suit he filed I.A.No.90 of 2004 under Rule 42(c) of the Agency Rules for a temporary injunction and by order dated 03.02.2005, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued a temporary injunction restraining the respondents herein form interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the schedule land and suppressing the said fact, the respondents filed subsequent suit O.S.No.89 of 2009 and obtained a temporary injunction under the impugned order in respect of the self-same property. 4. The plaint schedule in the earlier suit is in respect of Ac.2-00 of land in Sy.No.15/1 situate in Nuguru Village. The plaint schedule in the subsequent suit O.S.No.89 of 2009 filed by the respondents herein is in respect of two items viz., item No.1 Ac.1-20 gts in Sy.No.15/1 and item No.2 Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.15/1. Regarding item No.1 of the plaint schedule, the petitioner herein does not raise any dispute. Regarding item No.2 of plaint schedule, he would contend that he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and the same is protected by a temporary injunction issued earlier on 03.02.2005 in I.A.No.90 of 2004 in O.S.No.238 of 2004 filed by him. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that though the extent and survey number are same, the land is distinct and different, as can be seen from the variation in the boundaries mentioned in the two schedules. 6. A perusal of schedules in both the suits would show that there is a slight variation in the boundaries. However, the question as to whether or not the two schedules relate to one and the same property cannot be decided in the present proceedings. However, in view of the fact that both the suits are against the same parties and according to the petitioner herein, the plaint schedule item No.2 is the same as the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.238 of 2004, which aspect is disputed by the respondents herein, it is desirable that both the matters are disposed of together by the trial Court. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs filed certain documents including the pahanies and certificate issued by the revenue authorities in respect of his contention that the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. The question as to whether the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of item No.2 of plaint schedule, as claimed by him or the respondents are in possession thereof as contended by them, will have to be decided after determining the question as to whether or not item No.2 of the plaint schedule is the same land described in the plaint schedule in O.S.No.238 of 2004. 8. In the circumstances, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to receive the counters filed by respective parties in both the IAs and after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides dispose of the injunction applications in both the suits together, within two months. Till such time, the status quo obtaining as on today in respect of the schedule lands shall be maintained by both parties. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th August, 2011 Note: CC in three days. Lrkm.