THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3925, 3927, 3928 and 3929 of 2009 Date of Order: 29-07-2011 CT in C.R.P.No.3925 of 2009 Between: Parvathaneni Tandava Krishna ..Petitioner and Sri Dharma Tank ..Respondent The Court made the following Common Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3925, 3927, 3928 and 3929 of 2009 Common order: On Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada passing orders in O.A.Nos.14, 3, 10 and 2 of 2005 directing the petitioners/plaintiffs to vacate and handover possession of the schedule property to the respondent/defendant within 30 days from the date of order, the petitioners instituted suits—O.S.Nos.295, 294, 291 and 232 of 2009 respectively under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) for a declaration that the defendant has no title to the suit schedule property, award costs of the suit etc. Pending the said suits they have also filed I.A.Nos.122, 282, 281 and 250 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from executing the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada in O.As. by dispensing with notice. Since no orders have been passed on the said I.As. the present revisions are being filed on 21-08-2009. 2. This Court while ordering notice before admission suspended the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada instead of disposing of C.R.Ps. at the admission stage directing the Court below to decide the I.As. and till such I.As. are decided the respondent/defendant should not evict the petitioners/plaintiffs pursuant to the said order. In the process, the matters are unnecessarily pending since for the last three years. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Appeal lies to the Commissioner and the suit itself is not maintainable. 5. Whether the suit is maintainable or not cannot be decided at this stage. Since injunction applications seeking not to evict them from the suit schedule property pursuant to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner are filed, the lower court is under obligation to decide the said I.As. on either way. 6. It is well settled principle of law in order to maintain the injunction the plaintiff has to establish three ingredients as held by this Court in BARKAT ALI v. ZULFIQUAR[1] viz., 1. Prima facie title 2. Balance of convenience and 3. Irreparable injury. The first condition is being sin quo non plaintiff has to satisfy atleast two conditions. 7. In view of the same, lower court is directed to dispose of the I.As. within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance of the same to this Court and till the I.As. are decided the respondent is restrained from evicting the petitioners from the suit schedule property . 8. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 29-07-2011 Murthy [1] AIR 1975 A.P.187