THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1566 & 3062 of 2002 C.M.A.No.1566/2002 BETWEEN: 1. Sri N.V. Subba Rao, S/o. N. Laxmaiah, R/o. Plot No.1224, Road No.62, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, and another. PETITIONERS AND 1. Syed Meraj Ahmed, S/o. Syed Musleen Ahmed, R/o. 9565, Slater Ave. # 16, Fountain Valley, California, 92708. U.S.A. and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel For The Petitioners: Sri N.V. Subba Rao Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: Mr. K. Venkateswarlu The Court made the following order: COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) C.M.A.No.1566 of 2002 is filed by defendants 2 and 3 and C.M.A.No.3062 of 2002 is filed by the first defendant, against the order dated 23.04.2002 passed in I.A.No.806 of 2000 in O.S.No.53 of 2000 by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, whereby the I.A. filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., to grant ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property pending disposal of the suit, was allowed. On 9.06.2003, both the parties agreed for passing of conscience order in the appeals, which reads as under. “Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both the appeals have been filed assailing the orders passed in an application I.A.No.806/2000 in O.S.No.53/2000 by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. It appears that another suit being O.S.No.38/1993 for partition of the same property had been decreed and the trial Court’s decree is under challenge before this Court. The matter needs consideration and there are some sale deeds also which are disputed in the present suit. Whether the sale deeds are genuine or not would have to be decided at the time of decision in the suit. We are also told that trial has already begun in the suit and therefore the parties through their counsels have agreed to passing of the following order while modifying the order passed by the District Judge. The parties shall maintain status – quo and shall not create any third party interest in the property in dispute nor shall try to change the nature of the property by making any constructions. This order shall remain operative till the disposal of the suit pending in the trial Court. The learned District Judge is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.” The learned District Judge, through her letter Dis.No.6082/2009 dated 28.08.2009 informed to the Registry that after closure of evidence of the plaintiffs, the suit was posted to 6.08.2009 for filing chief affidavits of the defendants and on payment of costs the suit was again adjourned to 31.08.2009 as the defendants did not choose to file the chief affidavits on the previous date. Having regard to the fact that the conscience order passed on 9.06.2003 is in operation since then, both the appeals are disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo and they shall neither create any third party interest nor try to change the nature of the property in dispute, until disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (A. Gopal Reddy, J.) ___________________ (B. Chandra Kumar, J.) 3rd September, 2009 Js.