IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH (11TH) DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.3643 of 2011 Between: T.Devanarayana Reddy … Revision Petitioner And: V.Devender Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3643 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 22.07.2011 in CMA No.12 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein was allowed, setting aside the order dated 08.05.2009 in IA No.676 of 2009 in OS No.691 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondents. In the said suit, he filed IA No.676 of 2009 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from in any way interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property i.e., Ac.1.40 cents together with constructions thereon. By order dated 08.05.2009 the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein filed appeal i.e., CMA No.12 of 2009. 4. Earlier, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the CMA confirming the order of the trial Court in granting injunction. Assailing the same, the defendants in the suit filed CRP No.4204 of 2010. This Court by order dated 19.01.2011 disposed of the revision and remanded the matter to the learned Additional District Judge to dispose of the appeal afresh along with the application filed for receiving additional evidence. On such remand, the learned Additional District Judge, by impugned judgment dated 22.07.2011 allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to mark the documents filed by both sides and dispose of the petition afresh. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 5. This Court by order dated 30.09.2011 suspended the operation of the impugned judgment in CMA No.12 of 2009 for a period of two weeks. The suit is filed in the year 2009 for the relief of permanent injunction. Both parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions before the trial Court. Certain additional evidence was sought to be adduced before the appellate Court in CMA No.12 of 2009 in the earlier round of litigation. Subsequent to the remand, the appellate Court has directed the trial Court to mark the documents filed by both parties and dispose of the petition on merits afresh. 6. It is seen that the contentions raised by both parties in the present proceedings would again fall for consideration in greater detail during the course of trial of the suit, which is filed for permanent injunction. It is therefore considered unnecessary to go into the merits of the matter at this stage of interlocutory proceedings and on the other hand, it is considered just and expedient to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself at an early date, after taking into consideration of the entire evidence that may be adduced by both parties. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, preferably within four months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order, without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. Till such time, both parties shall maintain status-quo obtaining as on today, regarding possession of the plaint schedule property. 8. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of as stated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 11.10.2011 bss