IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5250 OF 2010 Between: Thakur Mohan Singh. --- Petitioner/ Appellant/ Respondent/ Defendant. AND T. Rajya Laxmi and another. --- Respondents/ Respondents/ Petitioners/ Plaintiffs. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5250 OF 2010 ORDER: This Revision is directed against the order dated 07-09-2010, whereby, the appeal i.e. C.M.A.75 of 2008, filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein instituted O.S. No.1290 of 2008 and in the said suit, the trial Court, by its order dated 26-10-2010 was pleased to grant ad interim injunction. After notice, the petitioner put in his appearance and filed a petition seeking vacation of the ad interim injunction order and the Court below, after considering the submissions made by both the counsel, made the order of injunction absolute on 28-08-2008. The said order was questioned by the petitioner by filing an appeal i.e. C.M.A. 75 of 2008. During the pendency of the appeal, there was no interim order. After hearing both the parties, the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, dismissed the Appeal on 07-09-2010. As stated supra, the same is questioned in this revision. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondents-plaintiffs are making hectic efforts to make some sort of construction in the suit schedule land and in the event of the suit being dismissed, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. Apparently, the respondents-plaintiffs are enjoying the order of injunction right from the date of the institution of the suit i.e., from 26-10-2007, and the petition filed by the petitioner to vacate the said ad interim injunction was dismissed and similarly the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Even during the pendency of the Appeal, the order of injunction passed by the trial Court was not suspended. In those, circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no justification to convert the order of injunction to that of status quo. If any constructions are made during the pendency of the suit and if ultimately the suit is dismissed, it is the funeral of the plaintiffs- respondents and for that, the said order of injunction need not be converted as status quo. Further, if the constructions are made and the suit is dismissed, it is for he plaintiffs-respondents to demolish the same and handover the vacant possession of the said plaint schedule land to the petitioner. With the above observation, this revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. December, 03, 2010. DSH