HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.480 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.135 of 1999 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of the suit schedule property, on the strength of a will, said to have been executed in her favour, on 25/07/1997, by her mother. The first respondent is her brother and the second respondent is the son of the first respondent. The first respondent, on the other hand, pleaded his right to the property on the strength of a will said to have been executed by her mother on 24/05/1999. After conducting a marathon trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment dated 25/03/2010. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.236 of 2010 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. She has also filed I.A.No.256 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC with a prayer to grant temporary injunction. The IA was dismissed by the lower appellate Court through order dated 27/04/2010. Hence, this appeal. Sri M.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the voluminous evidence placed before this Court demonstrates that his client is in possession of the property and still the lower appellate Court dismissed the IA. He contends that on account of the law and order problem that has arisen on account of the interference by the respondents with the possession of his client, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated by the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Narsaraopet. He has also made references to various orders passed therein. The dispute in relation to the suit schedule property is between the petitioner and her brother the first respondent. Both of them based their claims on two separate wills. The trial Court appears to have believed both the wills, but on finding that the one executed in favour of the first respondent is later in point of time, dismissed the suit. The state of affairs that prevailed during the pendency of the suit becomes an important factor, while considering the application for interlocutory orders in appeal. In the instant case, though the trial Court granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner, it was vacated. In the CMA filed by the appellant herein, this Court directed that status-quo be maintained by the parties. Ultimately, the suit came to be dismissed. By the time A.S.No.236 of 2001 was presented by the appellant herein, there was no order of injunction or status-quo, that operated vis-à-vis the respondents. The appellant categorically states that on 27/04/2010, the day on which the IA was dismissed, the respondents have highhandedly dispossessed her. The matter would have been altogether different, had there been a finding to the effect that she is in possession of the schedule property. The order of status-quo granted in favour of the appellant ceased to be operative, with the dismissal of the suit. However, the very initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even while civil proceedings are pending before the Courts, is totally untenable. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. It is held that the respondents shall be entitled to remain in possession of the property, but subject to the outcome of the appeal. The lower appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 22nd June, 2010 NOTE: Furnish C.C. by one week. B/o. SKM