THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5952 OF 2010 And CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.377 and 383 OF 2011 Dated: 15.12.2011 IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5952 OF 2010 Between : Dr. Pariti Suryanarayana Murthy … Petitioner And Smt.V.Swarajyalakshmi and 5 others … Respondents IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 377 OF 2011 Between : Smt. Meenakshi Jayaraman … Petitioner And Smt.V.Swarajyalakshmi and 5 others … Respondents IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 383 OF 2011 Between : R.Shankar … Petitioner And Smt.V.Swarajyalakshmi and 5 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5952 OF 2010 And CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.377 and 383 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.4244, 4239 and 4241 of 2006 respectively on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The suits are filed against the respondents herein for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the suit schedule plots. Along with the main suits, the revision petitioners also moved applications for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court by separate orders dated 09.04.2007 dismissed all the applications holding that the plaintiffs/revision petitioners failed to make out prima facie case and they could not even establish their possession. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners preferred C.M.A.Nos.212, 209 and 210 of 2007. The said appeals were also dismissed by the lower appellate Court by separate judgments dated 25.10.2010. Hence, these revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance upon the proceedings of the Special Officer and Competent Authority of Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad in C.C.No.H/253/81 dated 24.01.2007, vehemently contended that in the light of the said proceedings, the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court as well as the trial Court that the petitioners were not in possession cannot be sustained. It is also contended that though the proceedings dated 24.01.2007 were placed before the lower appellate Court, the same was not considered on an erroneous assumption that the revision petitioners were not among the applicants. I have also heard Sri N.Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Having perused the proceedings dated 24.01.2007 upon which the petitioners placed reliance to substantiate their possession and on a careful consideration of the other material available on record, though I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below, I deem it appropriate to direct that the suit schedule plots should not be sold and no third party interest should be created till the disposal of the suit. It is made clear that in case any constructions are made in the suit schedule properties, the same should be subject to result of the suits. There shall also be a direction to dispose of the suits following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. The orders under revision shall stand modified to the extent indicated above and all the three Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 15.12.2011 Klp/Ivd