THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1011 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N. V. Ramana) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed aggrieved by the action of the learned trial Judge namely VI Additional District Judge, Medak, at Siddipet, in not disposing of the interlocutory application in I.A. No. 405 of 2010 in O.S. No. 8 of 2010 pending on his file. Appellant herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 8 of 2010 before the Court below, against the respondents herein, for the reliefs of declaration of title, consequential declaration of the registered sale deed document No. 374/2010 dated 27.03.2010 as sham and nominal document and not binding on the appellant-plaintiff, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. Pending the suit, the appellant filed I.A. No. 405 of 2010, seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the 2nd respondent or its directors, subordinates, officers, servants, workers or whosoever claiming under it or respondents 1, 3 and 4 from raising any constructions over the petition schedule properties. According to the appellant, the Court below, on 27.08.2010, while ordering urgent notice in the said I.A., directed both parties to maintain status quo till 31.08.2010 and posted the matter to 31.08.2010. Thereafter, the matter was called on 31.08.2010, 01.09.2010, 02.09.2010, 06.09.2010, 07.09.2010 and on all those dates, interim order of status quo was extended from time to time. Thereafter, on 08.09.2010, both sides were heard and the documents produced by them were marked as Ex.A1 to A20 and Ex.B1 and B2 and the matter was posted for orders on 20.09.2010, extending the interim order till then. On 20.09.2010, as the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was directed to be called on 24.09.2010, but however, the interim orders are not extended. In the meanwhile, it seems, the appellant filed written arguments on 15.09.2010 in the office of the Court below. The counsel for the respondents raised an objection that after submission of oral arguments, there is no provision for filing written arguments. There was also controversy as to serving of copy of written arguments on respondents 2 to 4. In view of the same, the learned trial Judge, posted the matter to 28.09.2010 from 24.09.2010, to hear both sides on legal position as to whether written arguments can be filed subsequent to hearing of oral arguments and whether such arguments can be looked into. Thereafter, on 28.09.2010 and 01.10.2010, the counsel advanced arguments and the matter was posted to 06.10.20110. While so, it is the grievance of the appellant that, since 06.10.2010, the matter is being adjourned for one or the other reason, without the interim orders being extended, and respondents 2 to 4, taking advantage of the same, are undertaking constructions in the suit schedule property, and the action of the learned trial Judge in not disposing of I.A. No. 405 of 2010, filed for grant of ad-interim injunction, even after hearing the counsel on merits, is not proper. This Court, on 30.11.2010, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the present suit and also directed the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date. Respondent No.2 filed vacate stay petition, seeking to vacate the interim order of status quo granted by this Court in C.M.A.M.P. No. 2400 of 2010, and in the counter-affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it has taken a stand that it is the petitioner who filed written arguments after submission of oral arguments and the matter was posted for orders and thereby he caused delay in the disposal of I.A. and that no notice was served on respondent No.2 as to filing of written arguments and as the interim order was not extended by the Court below, the respondent restarted construction work in the subject site and completed substantial construction work as on date. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and considered the matter in detail. As it is the grievance of the petitioner that the Court below is not disposing the I.A. No. 405 of 2010, we are of the opinion that, instead of going into the controversial issues raised by the parties, the ends of justice would be met if the Court below is directed to dispose of the I.A. expeditiously. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of I.A. No. 405 of 2010 in O.S. No. 8 of 2010 pending on his file, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from today. Till such time, the interim order of status quo granted by this Court on 30.11.2010 in C.M.A.M.P. No. 2400 of 2010 shall be continued. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ______________________ JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO 22nd December, 2010 Note:- Issue CC by tomorrow B/o IBL