THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1511 OF 2009 DATED: 30-10-2009 Between : V. Raghavendra … Petitioner And 1. Pinnu Ramaswamy and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1511 OF 2009 ORDER : The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.460 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, which was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein from interfering with the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed as prayed for by judgment dated 26.8.2008. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants/respondents herein filed A.S.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri along with I.A.No.15 of 2008 to stay the operation of the decree of the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court by order dated 5.1.2009 allowed I.A.No.15 of 2008 staying the operation of the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 26.8.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. At the outset, it is to be noticed that pending suit before the trial Court though initially temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff, subsequently by order dated 12.10.1999 the same was modified directing to maintain status quo as on the date of filing of the suit. Admittedly the said order continued till the disposal of the suit by judgment and decree dated 26.8.2008. As noticed above, after full- fledged trial the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly the suit was decreed as prayed for. It is true that the correctness of the findings so recorded by the trial Court are now the subject-matter of the appeal. However, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court committed an error in granting stay of operation of the judgment and decree ignoring the fact that even pending the suit before the trial Court an order of status quo was in operation. According to the plaintiff/revision petitioner, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property all through. The trial Court has also recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to direct that status quo with regard to the suit schedule property shall be maintained till the disposal of A.S.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.1.2009 in I.A.No.15 of 2008 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on the date of the decree in O.S.No.460 of 1998 with regard to the suit schedule property till the disposal of A.S.No.5 of 2008. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.10.2009 gbs