IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH (20TH ) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4535 OF 2009 Between: Vattigunta Gopi Redy … Appellant And: Vattigunta Subba Reddy and two others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4535 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.08.2009 in C.M.A.No.4 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, wherein the said appeal filed by the 1st respondent herein, the plaintiff, was allowed, setting aside the order dated 03.02.2009 in I.A.No.930 of 2007 in O.S.No.170 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parchur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner/ D-1 and respondents 2 and 3 (D-2 and D-3) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property which comprises two items i.e., item No.1 terraced house in Ac.0-04 cents and item No.2 Ac.0-07½ cents vacant site in the same ward of Audipudi village. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.930 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit. The petitioner/D-1 filed counter opposing the application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, after enquiry, dismissed the application by order dated 03.02.2009. Aggrieved by same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.4 of 2009. By the impugned order dated 18.08.2009, the learned Senior Civil Judge set aside the order of the trial Court and allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction. Assailing the same, the petitioner/D- 1 filed the present civil revision petition. 4. This Court, while admitting the civil revision petition on 23.10.2009, granted interim suspension of the impugned order. Thus, as the matters stand, there is no interim injunction in force as of now. 5. The suit was filed in the year 2007 and the same is stated to be ripe for trial. The suit is one for permanent injunction. The contentions raised in the present civil revision petition have to be necessarily considered again in detail during the trial of the suit. Hence, it is considered neither prudent nor desirable to go into the merits of the matter in the present interlocutory proceedings at this length of time, about four years after filing of the suit. It is, therefore, considered that a direction be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself. The trial Court is accordingly directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th September 2011 Lrkm.