HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.854 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC is directed against an order and decree in I.A.No.76 of 2005 in A.S.No.5 of 2005 dated 24/03/2005 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, whereunder status-quo obtaining as on the date of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.219 of 1998, as to the nature of the suit schedule property, was ordered. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. It appears the respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.19 of 1998 seeking a decree for recovery of possession and arrears against the suit schedule property. After full trial, the suit was dismissed. During the pendency of the suit, status-quo orders were granted by the trial Court. However, aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.219 of 1998, the respondent/plaintiff filed A.S.No.5 of 2005 and also filed I.A.No.76 of 2005 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and obtained status-quo orders as on the date of dismissal of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. Though the appeal was numbered in the year 2005, no interim order was passed. Now, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that during the interregnum period i.e., after the dismissal of the suit and filing of the appeal, the respondent had raised certain structures, therefore, the status-quo orders granted on 24/03/2005 during the pendency of the appeal would create lot of inconvenience and cause irreparable loss to the appellants. For the last five years through no stay is granted by this Court, according to the appellants, the appeal is not disposed of and the same is pending. I am of the opinion that no ground is made out calling for interference of this Court under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC into the order and decree made in I.A.No.76 of 2005 in A.S.No.5 of 2005. During the pendency of the suit, status-quo orders were there and the first appeal is nothing but continuation of suit. Continuing the same order which is being for the last five years cannot be interfered at this stage. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, the lower appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal in A.S.No.5 of 2005 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 30th July, 2010 NOTE: Furnish C.C. by one week. B/o. SKM