HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.3403 of 2011 Date:27.08.2011 Between: Karnati Srinivas ..... Petitioner AND Karnati Sunanda .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Venkat Reddy Counsel for Respondent : Sri K.Chidambaram For Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 11.07.2011, in I.A.No.971 of 2007 in O.S.No.43 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 for declaration of title, delivery of vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property and for award of future mesne profits, which defendant No.1 receives from defendant Nos.2 to 16 from the date of filing of the suit till passing of the decree. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.971 of 2007 in the said suit for a direction to defendant Nos.2 to 13 to deposit the monthly rents to the credit of the suit. This application was opposed by the petitioner herein by filing a detailed counter-affidavit. However, the lower Court by the order under revision allowed the said application. At the hearing, Sri G.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lower Court has failed to give any reason whatsoever in allowing the said application. He invited the attention of this Court to prayer- (c) in the plaint and submitted that what is prayed as main relief in the suit is also prayed as interim relief and that the lower Court has failed to apply its mind in ordering the I.A. which has the result of decreeing the suit itself. Even though Sri K.Chidamabaram, learned counsel for the respondents, made valiant attempts to sustain the order of the lower Court, I am of the opinion that the said order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the lower Court failed to assign any reason whatsoever in allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs. In my opinion, such an order which is wholly laconic cannot be allowed to stand. Hence, the order under revision is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. Sri K.Chidamabaram, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that as the suit is of the year 2007, the lower Court may be directed to dispose of the same at an early date. Considering this request, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.4877 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th August, 2011 DR