THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1296 & 1568 OF 2011 DATED:10.08.2011 COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.1568 of 2011 is directed against the order, dated 31.01.2011, in C.M.A.No.3 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein-plaintiffs, was allowed setting aside the order, dated 30.08.2010, in I.A.No.208 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2009 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, whereunder the said application filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.1296 of 2011 is directed against the order, dated 31.01.2011, in C.M.A.No.2 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, was allowed setting aside the order, dated 03.03.2010 in I.A.No.189 of 2009 in O.S.No.81 of 2009 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Manthani and the said application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, was allowed and ex parte interim injunction granted on 18.09.2009 was made absolute. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records. 4. As both the matters are in respect of the same land and in between the same parties, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 5. Jodu Srinivas-petitioner in C.R.P.No.1296 of 2011 originally filed the suit–O.S.No.81 of 2009 for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents 1 to 3 herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land of 448 sq.yards in Sy.No.245 situate in Potulvaii village. According to him, he purchased the said land from Gudidevuni Balaji under registered sale deed, dated 06.02.2009 for valuable consideration and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and that on his application the revenue authorities have effected mutation of the land in his name in the revenue records. Alleging that the respondents 1 to 3 herein-defendants were trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment, he filed the suit for permanent injunction. He also filed I.A.No.189 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. On 28.08.2009, an ex parte interim injunction was granted. Subsequently, defendants in the said suit filed a counter opposing the grant of temporary injunction. By order, dated 31.03.2010, the trial Court allowed the said application and made the interim injunction absolute. Meanwhile, Ramesh Babu and J.Ramesh, who are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit- O.S.No.81 of 2009 along with others filed another suit- O.S.No.87 of 2009 for a permanent injunction against Jodu Srinivas, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.81 of 2009, seeking to restrain him from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the self-same property. They also filed a petition-I.A.No.208 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC for a temporary injunction. Plaintiff in O.S.No.81 of 2009, who is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.87 of 2009, filed a counter opposing the application. By order, dated 30.03.2010, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff in O.S.No.87 of 2009 filed C.M.A.No.3 of 2010 and by the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court and consequently granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.87 of 2009. Aggrieved by the said order, defendants filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2010. By the impugned order, dated 31.01.2011, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence, plaintiff in O.S.No.81 of 2009, who is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.87of 2009, filed the present two Civil Revision Petitions. 6. While ordering notice before admission, on 27.04.2011 in C.R.P.No.1568 of 2011, this Court directed that status quo obtaining as on that day shall be maintained with regard to the disputed land. A similar order was passed on 07.04.2011 while ordering notice before admission in C.R.P.No.1296 of 2011 also. 7. It can be seen that the two suits are between the same parties and in respect of the same land, the rival claims regarding the ownership and possession put forward by the contesting parties in both suits have to be necessarily considered and adjudicated on evidence that may be adduced during the course of the trial. As the same aspects pertaining to the claim of ownership and possession fall for consideration during the course of the trial, it is considered neither prudent nor desirable to go into the said aspects at this interlocutory stage in the present proceedings. As the suits are of the year, 2009, it is considered that a direction can be given to the trial Court to dispose of the two suits at an early date. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today in respect of the subject-matter of the two suits shall be maintained by both parties. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the two suits expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th August, 2011. Tsy