HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2006 Thursday, the Twenty Sixth day of August, Two Thousand and Ten Between Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Rep.by its Administrative Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor Petitioner AND Sri Mahant Kaushlendra Dassjee and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC is directed against the order made in I.A. No. 57 of 2004 in O.S. No. 46 of 2004 dated 3.3.2004 on the file of the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, whereunder the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC requesting the court to grant temporary injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from alienating the petition schedule property to anybody during pendency of the suit, was allowed. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit O.S. No. 46 of 2004 filed by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking recovery of possession under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Along with the suit, he had also filed IA No. 57 of 2004 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec.151 CPC requesting the court to grant temporary injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from alienating the petition schedule property during pendency of the suit. After detailed consideration of the entire material placed on record, the trial court allowed the application confirming the interim injunction granted on 28.1.2004 restraining the respondent No.1 therein from alienating the petition schedule property to anybody during pendency of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The suit itself is filed for recovery of possession under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The temporary injunction was made absolute on 3.3.2004. Initially, the appellant filed C.R.P. No. 2317 of 2004 aggrieved by the said order before this Court. However, the said Civil Revision Petition was dismissed saying that the petitioner has got alternative remedy of regular appeal against the order passed in an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, therefore, the revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. It appears, thereafter, with a delay condonation petition, the present Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. The delay was condoned by an order dated 27.1.2006 passed in CMP No. 2160 of 2005 and interim suspension as prayed for was also granted. Now the interim suspension is subsisting as of today. Under those circumstances, I deem it appropriate to continue the interim suspension granted on 13.7.2006 during pendency of the suit. However, it is made clear that the appellant/defendant shall not alter the nature of the suit land or create any third party interest during pendency of the suit. Further, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu August 26, 2010 MAS