IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.6133 OF 2010 Between: Ramisetti Suryanarayana …Petitioner A n d Sunkara Thammarao and 2 others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.6133 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 15-12-2010 in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009, on the file of the IV-Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein was allowed and the order dated 08-12-2006 in I.A.No.395 of 2005 in O.S.No.122 of 2005, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, granting temporary injunction, was set aside. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondents claiming to be the absolute owners thereof and in possession. He also filed I.A.No.395 of 2005 for temporary injunction. The trial Court granted an order of status quo. Subsequently after enquiry, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.395 of 2005 and granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents-defendants filed appeal in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009. The learned Additional District, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner- plaintiff filed the present revision petition. 4. While admitting the civil revision petition, this Court, by order dated 31-12-2010 in CRP.MP.No.8147 of 2010 granted interim stay of operation of the order of the appellate Court. 5. It is to be noted that the suit itself is one for injunction and the present proceedings in the civil revision petition are also for a temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit. Various questions of fact and law which fall for consideration in the present proceedings do arise in the suit also during the course of trial. The contentions of both sides regarding the dispute over possession have necessarily to be adjudicated upon by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced by both sides during the course of trial. Admittedly, an order of status quo was in operation during the pendency of I.A.No.395 of 2005 and the same was set aside by the appellate Court. While remanding the matter to the trial Court, the appellate Court did not pass any interim order. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Executive Magistrate, Prathipadu has passed orders under Section 145 Cr.P.C in M.C.No.8 of 2010 on 29-12-2010 and suppressing the same the petitioners filed the present civil revision petition and got the operation of the order of the appellate Court suspended. 7. In the circumstances, it is considered that instead of going into the merits of the case at this stage about six years after filing of the suit, the trial Court can as well be directed to dispose of the suit itself. 8. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2005, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties shall maintain status quo as was obtaining on 31-12- 2010, the date of interim order passed by this Court, till the disposal of the suit. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th March, 2011 Note:: Cc in 3 days B/o Lrkm.