IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1235 OF 2009 Between: Tirupathi Urban Development Authority .....APPELLANT AND T.G. Venkatakrishna ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1235 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order and decree, dated 16.09.2009, in I.A.No.114 of 2008 in A.S.No.119 of 2008, on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereunder and whereby, the application, filed for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the first respondent herein, was disposed of ordering the parties to maintain status-quo pending disposal of the appeal suit and accordingly modifying the interim injunction subsisting in favour of the first respondent herein. 2. Heard. 3. First Respondent herein filed the Original Suit against the petitioner and second respondent herein for permanent injunction and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, first respondent herein filed A.S.No.119 of 2008 and the present application therein for grant of temporary injunction. Status-quo order was passed in the present application. 4. It is not in dispute before this Court that under Ex.A1, the first respondent herein was given permission to put up a bunk. But it is alleged by the appellant herein that the first respondent herein is encroaching other open site and raised construction, without there being any permission. That issue has to be decided in the Appeal Suit itself. 5. Admittedly, during the pendency of the Original Suit there was temporary injunction in favour of the first respondent herein. Similarly, the impugned order was passed directing the parties to maintain status-quo, after duly recording that the first respondent herein is in possession of the property. Even the appellant herein did not deny or dispute the fact that the first respondent herein is in possession of the property as mentioned in the schedule. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, since it is passed after elaborate consideration of evidence on record. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, the appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal suit within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 10, 2010 MD