IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4004 OF 2009 Between: Arabu Rudramma ..... PETITIONER AND Chimala Sanjappa and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4004 OF 2009 O R D E R : The plaintiff in O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur is the revision petitioner. The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein from interfering with the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.165 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code seeking temporary injunction. After hearing both the parties, the said application was allowed by order dated 02.08.2007 granting temporary injunction as prayed for. However, C.M.A.No.3 of 2008 preferred by the defendants/respondents herein was allowed in part by the lower appellate Court, thereby setting aside the temporary injunction in respect of item No.4 was concerned. Accordingly, the interim injunction in respect of item No.4 was vacated recording a finding that the defendants/respondents herein were in possession of the said item No.4. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the present civil revision petition. While directing notice before admission, this Court by order dated 06.10.2009, ordered that status quo obtaining as on that date shall be maintained as to the nature and possession of the suit schedule property. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Whereas the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the lower appellate court ought to have upheld the temporary injunction even in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule property, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that since the defendants were in possession of item No.4, the temporary injunction was rightly vacated by the lower appellate Court. Be that as it may, keeping in view that the main suit is still pending, without expressing any opinion on rival claims, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition with a direction to the Court below to dispose of the main suit following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, status quo ordered by this Court dated 06.10.2009 in respect of the suit schedule property shall be maintained. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ​_____________ Date: 19.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J. Ivd