THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP Nos. 4952 & 5152 of 2010 Date of order: 29.11.2010 Between: CRP No. 4952 of 2010 Yellapu Rama Rao (died) and others …Petitioners and Smt. D. Satyavathi and others ..Respondents and CRP No. 5152 of 2010 Smt. Davuluri Satyavathi …Petitioner and Smt. Yellapu Nookarathnam and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP Nos. 4952 & 5152 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions being connected are disposed of by this common order. Heard both sides. The petitioners in both the revisions are plaintiffs in two different suits. Both the suits are filed by the respective petitioners against the respective respondents for perpetual injunction in respect of self same suit schedule property. Applications for interim injunction were also moved by both the plaintiffs. While interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner in CRP No. 5152 of 2010, the application for interim injunction in the suit filed by the petitioners in CRP No. 4952 of 2010 was dismissed. Thereupon two civil miscellaneous appeals were filed by the petitioners in CRP No. 4952 of 2010. After considering the record, the lower appellate court dismissed the petitioners’ applications for interim injunction, however the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner in CRP No. 5152 of 2010 was converted to the order of status quo to be maintained by both the parties pending the suit. Aggrieved thereby, both the revision petitioners are before this Court. While learned counsel for the petitioners in CRP No. 4952 of 2010 submits that the injunction application ought to have been duly considered by both the courts, inasmuch as, according to him, there is a cloud on the title claimed by the respondents therein. He also relies upon the temporary injunction said to have been obtained by them against third parties to establish their possession. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP No. 5152 of 2010 contends that there was a subsisting injunction in her favour from 2006 onwards and for the first time the lower appellate court, under the impugned order, has converted the same to that of the status quo. He points out that the lower appellate court also found that there is prima facie case in her favour, but on the ground of alleged lack of balance of convenience, the order of status quo was passed. It is not disputed by both the parties that the suits were directed to be disposed by the lower appellate court and the trial is under way. Even otherwise, the lower appellate court found that the suit schedule property is a vacant site except one shed room and as such it was of the opinion that interest of justice would be served, if both the parties are directed to maintain status quo pending disposal of the suit. In view of the fact that the suits are already under trial and the order of status quo passed by the lower appellate court is in operation and both the parties are maintaining status quo, no useful purpose will be served in going into the question as to which party is in possession of the suit schedule property and if so, which party is entitled to interim injunction pending the suit. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to dispose of both these revisions by directing both the revision petitioners to maintain status quo, as directed by the lower appellate court under the impugned order, and the trial Court is directed to dispose of both the suits expeditiously and in any case before the end of 31st March, 2011. The revision petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 29.11.2010 KR