IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH \) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5856 of 2009 Between: Marreboina Pedda Naganna & another … Petitioners And: Govindappa & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5856 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the decree and judgment dated 24.11.2006 in CMA No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein was allowed, setting aside the order dated 15.09.2006 in IA No.322 of 2006 in OS No.97 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilakuntla. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed suit for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property fell to their share in the family partition that took place on 16.07.1967 and ever since they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants on the other hand would contend that the first defendant purchased the suit land under registered sale deed dated 11.06.1965 and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiffs filed IA No.322 of 2006 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for grant of temporary injunction. The respondents/defendants filed counter, opposing the same. 4. During enquiry, Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked on behalf of the petitioners and Exs.R.1 to R.5 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Junior Civil Judge by order dated 15.09.2006 allowed the said application and granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred appeal in CMA No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. By impugned judgment, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court. Hence, the present revision by the plaintiffs 1 and 2. 6. While admitting the revision petition on 29.12.2009, this court directed status-quo obtaining as on that day shall be maintained. 7. It is seen from the material on record that both parties are claiming title to the suit land through different sources and both parties are claiming to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land to the exclusion of others. The suit is filed for declaration of title and for consequential injunction. The consequential injunction therefore depends upon the main relief of declaration of title. The rival contentions of the parties pertaining to the claim of the title and also possession have therefore to be considered only on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. The documents filed by both parties in the interlocutory application do arise for consideration in greater detail during the trial of the suit also. As the suit is filed in the year 2006, which is ripe for trial, it is considered neither just nor expedient to go into the merits of the case at this stage of interlocutory proceedings. Instead, it is considered just and proper to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit itself at an early date. 8. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and till such time the suit is disposed of, the status-quo order granted by this court on 29.12.2009 shall remain in force. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 16.12.2011 bss