THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5668 of 2007 And CONTEMPT CASE No.915 of 2009 ORDER: The first respondent filed O.S.No.489 of 2006 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, against the petitioner and the second respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. He also filed I.A.No.1222 of 2006 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C for temporary injunction. The I.A. was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by that the first respondent filed C.M.A.No.12 of 2006 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. He also filed I.A.No.1021 of 2006 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction, which was also dismissed by the District Judge through his order, dated 1.09.2006. The petitioner prepared this revision petition against the order in I.A.No.1021 of 2006, though it was dismissed. However on noticing that C.M.A.No.12 of 2006 was allowed on 29.12.2006, the C.R.P. is presented as though it is against the C.M.A., just by substituting the date of order. While admitting the revision petition, this Court passed an order of interim stay. Alleging that the order of interim stay is violated, the petitioner filed C.C.No.915 of 2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the first respondent. The petitioner has to squarely blame himself for the gross inaccuracy in presenting the revision petition or filing the contempt case. As observed earlier, the revision petition was prepared as though it is against the order in I.A.No.1021 of 2006. In the grounds also specific reference is made to the I.A., and the introductory portion of the Memorandum of Revision also shows that as though it is against the order in I.A.No.1021 of 2006 in C.M.A.No.12 of 2006. In fact, the order in I.A.No.1021 of 2006 is in favour of the petitioner and he could not have any grievance about it. In C.R.P.M.P.No.7482 of 2007 filed in the C.R.P., also he prayed for suspension of the order, dated 01.09.2006 passed in I.A.No.1021 of 2006. It is true that C.R.P. was admitted and interim order was granted. That however is to the effect that the order in I.A.No.1021 of 2006 in C.M.A.No.12 of 2006 dated 01.09.2006 is suspended. It is virtually without any effect so far as the petitioner is concerned. There could have been some meaning had suspension of the order in C.M.A. been prayed for and granted. In clear terms, the interim order passed by this Court is only to the effect that the order in I.A.No.1021 of 2006 is suspended. For all practical purposes, the order is meaningless so far as the petitioner is concerned. The Memorandum of Grounds, as observed earlier, is directed against the order in the I.A.No.1021 of 2006 and not against the C.M.A. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the Contempt Case is closed. However, it is made clear that if the suit is pending, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 11th June, 2010 Js.