HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2697 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein instituted O.S.No.57 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, she also filed I.A.No.72 of 2009, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for grant of temporary injunction. Initially, ad interim injunction was granted and that, after the appearance of the respondents-defendants and after hearing the parties concerned, the trial Court by its order, dated 05.05.2009, granted interim injunction as prayed for till disposal of the suit. The same was questioned by the respondents- defendants by filing C.M.A.No.30 of 2009 before the II Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, who allowed the said appeal, vacating the said order of interim injunction. The same is challenged in this Revision. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. From the facts, it appears that the petitioner is having an order of injunction in her favour from the very inception of the said suit. The said suit was instituted on 30.03.2009, and initially, ad interim injunction was granted and subsequently, the same was made absolute on 05.05.2009. During the pendency of the appeal also, it is apparent that the petitioner-plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the vacation of the order of injunction by the II Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, the plaintiff approached this Court and filed the present Revision Petition. This Court, while issuing notice before admission on 02.07.2010, was pleased to direct both the parties to maintain status quo existing as on that date. Of course, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants that the suit schedule property is the joint family property and there cannot be an order of injunction against the co-owner. But, this Court is not going into the merits of the case. The specific case of the petitioner- plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is only 428 guntas, whereas the respondents’ case is that joint family properties consist of about 27 acres. All these aspects have to be gone into by the trial Court during the course of trial. As there was an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff during the pendency of both the said suit and the appeal and further, as this Court had also passed an order to maintain status quo as on 02.07.2010, I am of the view that this Revision Petition can be disposed of directing both the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the said suit before the trial Court. As the said suit is of the year 2009 and that too, it is a suit for injunction simplictor, the trial Court shall dispose of the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 03rd September 2010 dr