IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3205 OF 2011 Between: Gellu Ramulu and another …Petitioners A n d Gellu Komuraiah and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3205 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.06.2011 in C.M.A.No.12 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein, was dismissed, confirming the order dated 01.08.2008 in I.A.No.515 of 2006 in O.S.No.137 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.137 of 2006 for declaration of title and for injunction against the petitioners/D-1 and D-2 and respondents 2 to 4 i.e., D-3 to D-5 in respect of the plaint schedule property. In the said suit, 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.515 of 2006 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession in respect of the plaint schedule land of items 1 to 3 i.e., Ac.0-24 gts in Sy.No.450/B, Ac.0-36 gts in Sy.No.450/C and Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.451 of Laxmakkapalli village. The petitioners opposed the same by filing a counter. 4. During enquiry, Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.R-1 to R-10 were marked on behalf of the defendants. 5. After due enquiry, the trial Court, by order dated 01.08.2008 allowed the said application and granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners/D-1 and D-2 filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.12 of 2009 and by the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the present revision by the petitioners/D-1 & D-2. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order of the learned Senior Civil Judge is vitiated by non-application of mind, as the documentary evidence filed by the petitioners herein/defendants, have not been duly considered. 7. It is to be noted that the suit was filed in the year 2006. The Courts below recorded a concurrent finding regarding the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction and accordingly temporary injunction was granted. Having regard to the fact that the suit is filed in 2006 for the relief of declaration and injunction, it is considered that instead of going into the merits of the contentions of both parties, regarding possession of the suit lands, it is desirable that the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit itself at an early date, as the same contentions that are raised now in the present proceedings would again fall for consideration in a greater detail before the trial Court at the time of the trial. It is, therefore, considered neither just nor expedient to go into the merits at this stage interlocutory stage, that too five years after filing of the suit during which period there has been a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 8. In the circumstances, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st October, 2011 Lrkm