IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CRP Nos.2653 and 2654 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 2653 of 2009 Petition under Article 227of Constitution of India against the order dated 25/04/2009 in CMA NO : 47 of 2006 on the file of the court of theIV Additional District Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District Between: K. Sita Devi, D/o. K.Venkata Rao, R/o. Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 K. Ramesh Rao, S/o. Ram Gopal Rao, R/o. 502, Pent House, Rajeswar Mansion, Padmavathi Nagar, Khairathabad, Hyderabad-82. 2 R.Mahalakshmi, W/o. R.V. Jayant, R/o. B.No. 320, Safilguda, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : MR.K.R.KOTESWARA RAO FOR RVAK-1 The Court made the following : ORDER: These two revision petitions are filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the common order dated 25.4.2009 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District in CMA Nos.47 and 49 of 2006 reversing the order dated 21.1.2006 passed in I.A.Nos.1661 and 1956 of 2004 in O.S.Nos.819 and 951 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material placed on record. Admittedly, the petitioner as well as the respondent herein filed two different suits viz., O.S.Nos.819 and 951 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District seeking injunction along with I.A.Nos.1661 and 1956 of 2004 for temporary injunctions respectively. The trial Court dismissed I.A.No.1956 of 2004 and allowed I.A.No.1661 of 2004. Aggrieved by the same, the matters were carried in appeal being CMA Nos.47 and 49 of 2006. Since the interlocutory petitions were disposed of by a common order, the appeals arising out of the said order were also disposed of by a common order and thus the two revision petitions arising out of the said order are also disposed of by this common order. Both the petitioners herein filed their respective suits for permanent injunction along with petitions seeking temporary injunction. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner in I.A.No.1661 of 2004 is the owner of the suit schedule property but the contention of the petitioner in I.A.No.1956 of 2004 is that the petitioner in I.A.No.1661 of 2004 executed a registered agreement cum GPA in favour of the 2nd respondent therein and delivered property to her, who in turn sold the said property to him under a registered sale deed dated 19.11.2003 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The Court below after reappreciating the entire evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the evidence on record established the settled possession of the petition schedule property of the petitioner in I.A.No.1956 of 2004 and the petitioner in I.A.No.1661 of 2004 is not in possession of the suit property and accordingly held that the petitioner in I.A.No.1661 of 2004 is not entitled for temporary injunction, Hence these two revision petitions. Today, when the matters are taken up, it is agreed by both the learned counsel for the parties that since the suits are filed in the year 2004, without going into the merits of the matters, the Court below may be directed to dispose of the suits itself. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the revision petitions are disposed of directing the Court below to expedite the hearing of the suits and dispose of the same within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, status quo granted by this Court on 9.7.2009 shall be maintained by both the parties. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.13.8.2009 msv