THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2014 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 29.04.2011 passed in I.A.No.482 of 2011 in C.M.A.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur whereby and whereunder the learned II Additional District Judge refused to grant temporary injunction pending disposal of the C.M.A.No.8 of 2011. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.339 of 2010. He filed the suit O.S.No.339 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur seeking the following reliefs: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. a) declaring the title of the plaintiff to the plaint scheduled property; b) granting mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to close trenches in the plaint scheduled property and deliver vacant possession of the plaint scheduled property to the plaintiff, in default of which direct the same under due process of law; c) directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff; d) granting such other and further relief or reliefs to the plaintiff as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and the circumstances of the case.” It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he got the property under a registered gift deed dated 06.11.2010 executed by his mother and his mother in turn got the said property under a registered gift deed dated 09.12.2004. The petitioner/plaintiff also moved I.A.No.1104 of 2010 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent from proceeding with constructions in the suit schedule property. The application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 22.02.2011. Assailing the order, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. The petitioner also moved I.A.No.482 of 2011 seeking interim orders pending disposal of the C.M.A. The learned II Additional District judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve for grant of interim injunction pending disposal of the C.M.A. and accordingly, dismissed the I.A.No.482 of 2011 dated 29.04.2011. Hence, this revision. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 20.06.2011. Despite notice being served on the respondent, none appears on his behalf. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the respondent is allowed to proceed with constructions, there is every possibility of recovery of possession being frustrated, in the event of suit being decreed. Other contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel. Since the C.M.A. is still pending before the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, I deem it appropriate to direct the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur to expedite the hearing of the C.M.A.No.8 of 2011. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur to dispose of the C.M.A.No.8 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible preferably within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.22nd July, 2011 Note: Issue CC by Monday B/o PNV