IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST (1ST) DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6 of 2008 Between: Church of Christ Welfare Society, Mahabubnagar … Petitioner And: B. Bhanu Murthy …Respodnent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2007 in CMA No.4 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar district, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondent herein was allowed in part, by setting aside the order dated 01.03.2007 in IA No.50 of 2007 in OS No.25 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Alampur and remanded for fresh disposal of the said IA. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit against the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from tress- passing and interfering with the petition schedule premises and peaceful activities of the petitioner-society in the petition schedule premises. The petitioner also filed IA No.50 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for temporary injunction. According to the petitioner-society, which is registered society, it has constructed a church in the premises and has been conducting religious activities. The petitioner alleges that the respondent, who is not a member of the plaintiff’s society, has been trying to trespass into the schedule premises and dumped unnecessary articles and also causing disturbance to the religious activities by beating the drums and causing nuisance. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by order dated 01.03.2007 allowed the said application and granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed CMA No.4 of 2007. By impugned judgment, the learned Senior Civil Judge, set aside the trial Court’s order and remanded to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of IA No.50 of 2007 afresh after considering the documents and further directed that pending disposal of the IA afresh, the defendant be restrained from interfering with the activities of the plaintiff, including its administration and with a liberty to the defendant to enter the schedule premises for offering prayers, without causing disturbance in the schedule premises. It was further directed that in the event if defendant intends to use mike or drums and conduct special prayers, he shall do so after obtaining consent in writing from the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the petitioner. 4. This Court, while admitting the revision on 04.01.2008, passed interim order in CMP No.10 of 2008 to the effect that ‘the respondent shall limit his activities only to the extent ordered by the appellate Court. In case, there is any deviation, he shall be liable for contempt proceedings. The petitioner shall record the activities of the respondent, in case they are against the order of the appellate Court’. It is stated that the interim order is being complied with. 5. The suit is of the year 2007 and is one for injunction. The documents, which the appellate Court directed the trial Court to peruse, while considering IA No.50 of 2007 afresh, would certainly fall for consideration during trial of the suit also. The same aspects, which have to be considered in IA No.50 of 2007, would again fall for consideration in the suit as well, which is also for bare injunction. Under those circumstances, it is considered that instead of directing the trial Court to dispose of the IA No.50 of 2007, at this length of time, about four years after filing of the suit, it would be just and proper to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself. Till such time the suit is disposed of, the interim order passed by this Court on 04.01.2008 shall remain in force. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit itself within six months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 01.04.2011 bss