IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.1709 & 1752 OF 2009 C.R.P.No.1709 of 2009 Between: M.A.Nayeem …Petitioner A n d Midde Gangamani and four others ..Respondents AND C.R.P.No.1752 of 2009 Between: M.A.Nayeem ..Petitioner A n d Midde Pedda Chinnaiah and four others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.1709 & 1752 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: C.R.A.No.1709 of 2009 is directed against the order dated 19.02.2008 in C.M.A.No.4 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein, the plaintiffs, was allowed setting aside the order dated 23.04.2008 in I.A.No.19 of 2006 in O.S.No.8 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan. 2. C..R.P.No.1752 of 2009 is directed against the order dated 19.02.2008 in C.M.A.No.5 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein, the plaintiffs, was allowed setting aside the order dated 23.04.2008 in I.A.No.498 of 2005 in O.S.No.198 of 2005, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan. 3. As both the revisions are in between the same parties and in respect of the same subject matter of the dispute, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.1752 of 2009 by name M.A.Nayeem filed the suit O.S.No.198 of 2005 against the respondents Midde Pedda Chinnaiah and others for permanent injunction in respect of an extent of Ac.1-32 gts in Sy.Nos.73/P1, P2, P3, P4 & P5 of Janakampet shivar, Yedpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. According to him, he purchased the suit land from one Midde Gangamani, 5th respondent in C.R.P.No.1752 of 2009, under an agreement of sale. The said Gangamani and others filed the suit in O.S.No.8 of 2006 against the petitioner M.A.Nayeem for permanent injunction in respect of the same land. M.A.Nayeem filed I.A.No.498 of 2005 in O.S.No.198 of 2005 for temporary injunction. By order dated 23.04.2008, the said application was allowed granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff i.e., M.A.Nayeem. M.Gangamani and others, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.8 of 2006 also filed I.A.No.19 of 2006 for temporary injunction. By the same common order dated 23.04.2008, the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, Gangamani and others filed two appeals i.e., C.M.A.Nos.4 & 5 of 2008. By the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2009, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed both the appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan in I.A.No.19 of 2006 in O.S.No.8 of 2006 and also I.A.No.498 of 2008 in O.S.No.198 of 2005. Consequently, the injunction granted in favour of M.A.Nayeem stood vacated. The said M.A.Nayeem, therefore, preferred the present civil revision petitions. 5. By interim order dated 24.04.2009 in C.R.P.MP.No.2481 of 2009 in C.R.P.No.1752 of 2009, this Court granted interim injunction in favour of the revision petitioner i.e., M.A.Nayeem restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. The said interim order is still in force. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that in the agreement of sale it is not recited that possession was delivered in favour of the petitioner herein and the respondents herein continued to be in possession. He would further contend that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking specific performance of the suit agreement of sale. The said contentions will be taken care of by the trial Court at the time of trial. The fact remains, as noted in the interim order dated 24.04.2009, that the petitioner herein had a temporary injunction in his favour during the pendency of I.A.No.498 of 2005 in his suit O.S.No.198 of 2005. Further, the temporary injunction granted by this Court on 24.04.2009 in favour of the petitioner continues to be in force. 7. Under those circumstances, it is considered that instead of going into merits of the matter at this stage, it would be just and proper to direct the trial Court to dispose of the two suits at an early date. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan is, therefore, directed to dispose of both the suits O.S.Nos.8 of 2006 and O.S.No.198 of 2005 at an early date, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The temporary injunction granted by this Court by order dated 24.04.2009 in CRP.MP.No.2481 of 2009 shall remain in force till the disposal of the suits. 8. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 13th June, 2011. Lrkm.