IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4300 of 2011 Between: Yedla Sunitha … Petitioner And K. Prathap Reddy & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Lakna Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri K. Venugopal Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4300 of 2011 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 09.09.201, in I.A.No.823 of 2011 in CMA.No.6 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with her possession of land in Sy.No.310. It is the case of the respondents that there is an existing cart track in Sy.No.310, which is being used by them for reaching their agricultural fields and therefore they cannot be restrained from using the said cart track. In I.A.No.473 of 2010 filed by the petitioner, the trial Court has granted an order of ad interim injunction, which was subsequently made absolute. Questioning the said order, the respondents have filed CMA.No.6 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. In I.A.No.823 filed by the respondents in the said CMA, the lower appellate Court has suspended the order of injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner. This Court, while ordering notice to the respondents, suspended the order of the lower appellate Court, pending further orders. At the hearing, Sri Y. Lakna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lower appellate Court has ignored the material evidence on the basis of which the trial Court has granted injunction in favour of his client. He further submitted that his client had injunction from 16.07.2010 to 09.09.2011 on which date the lower appellate Court has suspended the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. Sri K. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, sought to support the order of the lower appellate Court by stating that cogent and convincing reasons have been assigned by it for suspending the injunction order of the trial Court. Since the CMA is pending before the lower appellate Court, it is not appropriate for this Court to render findings on the merits of the case. The fact remains that the injunction granted by the trial Court was in force from 16.07.2010 till 09.09.2011. Since there is a serious dispute regarding the existence of cart track, the lower appellate Court needs to adjudicate the appeal while considering the elements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. In the above circumstances, in order to balance the interests of justice, the parties are directed to maintain status quo existing as on today till the disposal of CMA by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court is directed to dispose of the CMA within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP.No.6103 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.11.2011 ES