THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.959 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Being aggrieved by the order dt.15.6.2009 passed in W.V.M.P. No.3979 of 2008 in W.P.M.P. No.35831 of 2007 in W.P. No.27412 of 2007, this appeal has been filed by original respondent Nos.5 to 11. We have heard the learned Advocates and have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Upon perusal of the order, we find that the appelants herein, namely, respondent Nos.5 to 11 in the writ petition, were directed to maintain status quo with regard to putting up consutrction on the land in question. The case of the original petitioner, who is respondent No.1 herein, is that the appellants herein were putting up construction on a public street. According to the appellants, the land over which the constuction is being putting up by the appellants is not a part of public street. The learned Single Judge, after considering the counter affidavit filed by the concerned respondents, came to the conclusion that the land in question is forming part of the public street and therefore by virtue of the impugned order the present appellants have been directed to maintain status quo. The said order has been challenged by the appellants as they propose to put up construction on the land in question. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the impugned order, and more particularly upon perusal of the judgments dt.26.11.1999 delivered in O.S.No.31 of 1986 and O.S.No.240 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, we find that the land in question is forming part of the public street as decided in the aforestated two suits. Of course, the judgments delivered in the aforestated two suits have been challenged by filing appeals, but no interim order has been passed in the appeals. It was prima facie found that the land in question forms part of a public street and therefore the leanred Single Judge has rightly directed the appellants to maintain status quo so as to see that no construction is put up on the public street. We do not find any illegality committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order and therefore the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. This order would not preclude the appellants in approaching the Court, wherein the appeals have been filed against the judgments in the aforestated suits, for getting appropriate orders. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04.8.2009 bnr