IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21st) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2905 of 2010 Between: Silveru Vijaya Prasad & 3 others … Petitioners And: Botike Sanjeeva … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2905 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 07.06.2010 in CMA No.13 of 2010 on the file of the VII Additional district Judge, Warangal, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioners- defendants under Order 41 Rule 5 and Section 94 CPC was dismissed confirming the order dated 25.02.2010 in IA No.5 of 2010 in OS No.26 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of Ac.5.01 guntas in Sy.No.64 of Somidi village. According to the respondent, he purchased the suit property from the pattedars Kummari Komuraiah and Kummari Mysaiah under registered sale deed dated 23.12.2009 for valid consideration and is in possession and enjoyment of the same ever since the date of purchase. He alleges that the defendants, without having any rights over the suit land, are threatening to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession with a view to grab the suit land on the basis of fabricated documents and therefore, filed suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff also filed IA No.5 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The petitioners/defendants filed counter, opposing the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by order dated 25.02.2010 allowed the application and granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeal CMA No.13 of 2010 and the learned Additional District Judge, by impugned order, dismissed the appeal and further directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within three months. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred the present revision. 4. During the enquiry before the trial Court, the plaintiff filed Exs.P.1 to P.37 and the defendants filed Exs.R.1 to R.40. Exs.P.1 to P.33 are pahanies and Ex.B.36 is the agreement of sale cum GPA under which the plaintiff claiming title and possession. Ex.P.34 is the encumbrance certificate and Ex.B.35 is the registered sale deed. The petitioners/defendants, on the other hand seek to rely upon the title deed proceedings of the revenue authorities and the pahanies in support of their claim of ownership and possession. 5. The suit itself is one for permanent injunction. Both parties claim to be in possession of the suit land as absolute owners thereof. Both parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. The grant or refusal of the relief of injunction depends on the question as to who among the parties is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. Of course, the question of title can also be gone into. But incidentally both the courts below have up held the claim of possession put forward by the plaintiff and the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court was confirmed in appeal. It is stated that during the pendency of the appeal, there was an interim order, directing both parties to maintain status-quo and the said order continued till the disposal of the appeal by the first appellate Court. While admitting the revision petition, this Court on 13.07.2010 directed both the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to possession of the suit land until further orders. When the suit itself is one for permanent injunction and the entire documentary evidence produced by both parties at this interlocutory stage again falls for consideration in greater detail at the time of trial of the suit and the same contentions raised in the present proceedings would again fall for adjudication by the trial Court, it is considered neither prudent nor desirable to go into the merits of the case at this stage and in stead, a direction can be issued for expeditious disposal of the suit itself. In fact, the first appellate Court also directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within three months. 6. Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the contentions raised in the suit and the necessity to evaluate the documentary evidence adduced by both parties in depth before adjudication of the dispute, it is considered just and expedient to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit at an early date within the period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Till such time, both parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to possession of the schedule land as directed by this Court earlier. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.09.2011 bss