THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1597 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the docket order dated 01.09.2009 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in C.M.A.No.43 of 2008. The petitioner herein, namely, Hyderabad Co-operative House Building Society Limited, filed O.S.No.594 of 2004 before the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Tract Court), Ranga Reddy District for specific performance of agreements of sale dated 25.02.1982 and 24.03.1982. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2334 of 2005 in O.S.No.594 of 2004 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C seeking interim injunction restraining respondents 16 to 40 and their nominees from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.6.00 of land in Sy.No.69 of Kondapur Village. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the entire material available on record, dismissed the I.A. holding that the petitioner failed to show his absolute possession over the schedule property or at least its absolute enjoyment over these years, besides the three conditions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the above C.M.A and the learned Principal District Judge adjourned the matter to 22.12.2009 through the impugned docket order dated 01.09.2009, which reads as under: “Hon’ble High Court gave direction to dispose of the suit within three months. Respondents 16 to 37 & 39 filed memo that the status quo can be maintained by both the parties till the disposal of the suit. In the result status quo is granted till disposal of the suit. There is no need to hear this CMA as the suit itself will be disposed of expeditiously in view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court. Call on 22/12/2009.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned District Judge failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner and erred in holding that there is no need to hear the C.M.A., on the basis of the memo filed by respondents 16 to 37 and 39 in the suit. He further submits that though there is an order of status quo, the respondents are trying to violate the same and hence the matter has to be remanded to the lower appellate Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents produced the memo dated 01.09.2009, filed by respondents 16 to 37 and 39. In the said memo, it is stated that there is no order of status quo or injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in the main suit, which was filed in the year 2004; that this Court by order dated 06.04.2009 made in C.R.P.No.2435/2008 filed by respondent Nos.16 to 40 directed the V Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Ranga Reddy District to dispose of the suit itself expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order; that as the C.M.A. is pending, the V Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy is unable to proceed with the trial as directed by this Court, since all the original documents filed in the suit are transmitted to the Principal District Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy and that in view of the orders passed by this Court, no further orders need to be passed in the C.M.A and the C.M.A. may be disposed of with a direction to the V Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Ranga Reddy District to dispose of the matter in accordance with the orders passed by this Court while directing the parties to maintain status quo. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The trial Court, while dismissing I.A.No.2334 of 2005 in O.S.No.594 of 2004 filed by the revision petitioner for interim injunction, observed that the revision petitioner failed to show his absolute possession over the schedule property or at least its absolute enjoyment over these years, besides the three conditions, and therefore, the revision petitioner was not entitled to seek the relief of temporary injunction. However, a perusal of the impugned order and the memo filed by respondents 16 to 37 and 39 would make it clear that the parties have agreed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. This would safeguard the interest of both the parties. This apart, this Court by order dated 06.04.2009 in C.R.P.No.2435 of 2008 directed the V Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Ranga Reddy District to dispose of the suit itself within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In view of the same, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter needs to be remanded to the lower appellate Court. In view of the memo filed by respondents 16 to 37 and 39 undertaking to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit, no order need be passed in this Civil Revision Petition. However, the V Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Ranga Reddy District is directed to dispose of the suit, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. N.V.RAMANA, J Date.30.08.2010 va