IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P.NO : 1668 of 2008 Between: D.Bhoopal Reddy ..... Petitioner AND Smt. Ch. Lakshmi and others. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P.No. 1668 of 2008 Oral order: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 28-03-2007 in C.M.A.No.248 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, reversing the order dated 07-09-2006 in I.A.No.2570 of 2004 in O.S.No.1798 of 2004 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C.), Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein was dismissed. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs, Respondents 4 to 7 are the defendants 1 to 4 and the revision petitioner is D-5 in O.S.No.1798 of 2004. 3. The parties are herein after referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 4. Brief facts which lead to the filing of the revision petition are that plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.1798 of 2004 seeking injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs’ over the suit schedule property of residential plots in Sy. Nos.281 to 284, 288 and 295 in the layout known as Mahadevapuram Residential Project, Phase-I, situated at Gajularamaram village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application in I.A.No.2570 of 2004 in O.S.No.1798 of 2004 seeking ad-interim injunction. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. holding that the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts with regard to the pendency of suits filed by the defendants 1 to 4 in respect of the suit schedule property and the documents marked under Exs.A-8 to A-10 filed by the plaintiffs clearly show that the lands in Sy. Nos.281 to 284 were purchased by the defendants 1 to 4, respectively, but not the land in Sy. No.288 as claimed by the plaintiffs, hence, there is no prima face case in their favour. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.248 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the trial Court directing both the parties to maintain status- quo of the suit schedule property without changing its existing physical features and without creating any third party interests over the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit. In its judgment, the learned Additional District Judge observed that the plaintiffs have purchased 3000 square yards under Exs.A-1 to A-3 in the year 1993, their rights were recognized in the Lok Adalat settlement dated 30-04- 2004 and the same was upheld by High Court. He also observed that the plaintiffs constructed a compound wall to the plots which were allotted in their favour. However, since the High Court granted interim injunction in favour of the defendants, directed both the parties to maintain status quo as stated supra. Not satisfied with the judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court, D-5 filed this revision petition against the plaintiffs and other defendants contending that the documents filed by the plaintiffs do not establish their possession over the suit schedule property and that the properties purchased by the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4 are different. The total extent of land in Sy. No.288 is Ac.11.20 guntas, and out of which, defendants 1 to 4 have purchased Ac.4.00 guntas. Hence, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside vacating the status quo existing as on that day. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the lower appellate Court erred in ordering status quo based on the copies of documents filed by R-1 to R-3 since the properties purchased by R-1 to R-3 and R-4 to R-7 are different . In fact the total extent of land in Sy. No.288 is Ac.11.20 guntas, out of which, R-4 to R-7 have purchased Ac.4.00 guntas. He further contended that as per compromise, all the parties have restricted their claim to Ac.32.10 guntas in Sy.No.281 to 284, 288 and 295, situated at Gajula Ramaram village, within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule property affixed to the said compromise. Therefore, R-1 to R-3 have no right, title or interest over the land in Sy.No.288. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision petition vacating the operation of the order of status quo dated 28-03-2007 granted in C.M.A.No.248 of 2006. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-D-5 and perused the order under revision. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the documents filed by the respondents 1 to 3, I am of the considered opinion that the lower appellate Court has taken care of protecting interest of both the parties and accordingly granted status quo. Hence, we see no reasons to interfere with the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court and the same is confirmed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 28-03-2007 in C.M.A.No.248 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad,. However, the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C.), Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to expedite hearing of the main suit and dispose of the same in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 15th December, 2010 kvr