IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1541 of 2009 Between: K.V.Narasimha Rao … Petitioner And: P. Geeta Bala … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1541 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the decree and judgment dated 14.08.2008 in CMA No.48 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondent herein, was allowed setting aside the order dated 12.07.2006 in IA No.420 of 2006 in OS No.1467 of 2006. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit OS No.1467 of 2006 for mere injunction in respect of an extent of 333.3 sq. yards situate in TS No.47/26 of Sivajipalem village, Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner also filed IA No.420 of 2006 for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The respondent/defendant filed a counter, opposing the same. 4. During enquiry before the trial Court, Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and Exs.R.1 to R.9 were marked on behalf of the respondent. The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, by order dated 12.07.2006 allowed the application and granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed appeal in CMA No.48 of 2006. The learned II Additional District Judge, on re-appreciation of the material available on record, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the present revision petition is filed. 5. This Court while ordering notice before admission in the revision petition, directed that the status-quo existing as on that day i.e., 24.04.2009 shall be maintained by both the parties and subsequently, the said order of status-quo was extended, until further orders. 6. The suit itself is one for injunction. Both parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. The same documents together with oral evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial fall for consideration in detail at the time of final disposal of the suit. There has been an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff till it was set aside by the appellate Court in CMA No.48 of 2006 on 14.08.2008. Subsequently, this Court directed both parties to maintain status-quo and the said order is still in force. 7. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2006, it is considered neither just nor expedient to go into the merits of the matter at this interlocutory stage by reappraising the evidence available on record at this length of time after filing of the suit. It is therefore considered just and proper to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself at an early date, preferably, within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Until such time, the status-quo granted by this Court on 24.04.2009 shall remain in force in the suit. It is made clear that the trial Court has to dispose of the suit on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the impugned orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.12.2011 bss