THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.6304 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 19.11.2009, passed in C.M.A.No.736 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the order dated 10.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.1185 of 2009 in O.S.No.996 of 2009 by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit filed by the respondent herein, was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the said order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned judgment and other material available on record. The dispute involved in I.A.No.1185 of 2009, filed by the respondent herein before the trial Court, is with regard to construction of compound wall by the petitioners herein- A.P. State Road Transport Corporation in the land said to have been allotted to them by the Government for construction of bus depot. It was the case of the respondent herein, plaintiff in the suit, that the petitioners herein- defendants have been proceeding with the construction of said compound wall, by encroaching into his land in Sy.No.296 of Anmagal, Hayathnagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and thereby closing access to the said land and also closing the well situated therein. The case of the petitioners herein was that they have been proceeding with the constructions only in the land in Sy.No.315 that was allotted to them and that the well is situated in the said land only. The trial Court, after considering the documentary evidence placed before it, observed that the issue involved has to be decided on the basis of oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by the parties during the course of trial, but not in the interlocutory application, but however, as the construction undertaken by the defendants has been causing inconvenience to the plaintiff, partly allowed the I.A.No.1185 of 2009, by order dated 10.07.2009, directing both parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred C.M.A.No.736 of 2009 before the first appellate Court, which, having considered the matter in detail, by the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2009, set aside the order of status quo and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed by the defendants. On detailed consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned District Judge, with a view to give a quietus to the litigation, passed an equitable order, setting aside the order of status quo passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter to trial Court with a direction to dispose of the I.A. within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision and the civil revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 1st February, 2010 IBL