THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.345 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 5.4.2005 in I.A.No.20 of 2005 in O.S. No. 5 of 2005 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, Khammam District, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellants under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from alienating the petitions schedule properties, was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as the appellants and the respondents as arrayed in this C.M.A. 3. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession of A and B suit schedule properties. A schedule property is consisting of Ac.3.20 gts i.e. an extent of Ac.1.00 in Survey No.163/A, an extent of Ac.1-00 in Survey No.163/E and an extent of Ac.1.20gts in Survey No.163/Ee. B Schedule property is consisting of land to an extent of Ac.1.19gts in Survey No.90/Ru. Both A and B Schedule properties are situated at Sathupally Revenue Village, Khammam Distrct. 4. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the respondents, Exs.B.1 to B. 12 were marked. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record and also after hearing both sides, dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.M.A. 5. The trial court initially granted ad-interim injunction on 31.1.2005 and subsequently after hearing both sides, the said interim injunction was vacated on 5.4.2005, which is impugned in this C.M.A. The appellants and the respondents are relatives. It is alleged that taking advantage of old age of the first respondent, the second respondent is trying to alienate the properties depriving the shares of petitioners 2 and 3. Therefore, interim injunction was ordered by this court restraining the respondents and their agents from alienating the suit schedule properties situated at Sattupally, Khammam District. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that since the matter pertains to the year 2005 and since the interim order granted by this court is subsisting, the same may be continued till disposal of the suit pending before the trial court to safeguard the interest of the appellants. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that in the interests of both the parties, the suit itself can be disposed of at the earliest. 9. Hence, the trial court is directed to dispose of the main suit itself as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on priority basis, if not already disposed of. Till such time, the interim order dated 27.06.2005 granted by this court in C.M.A.M.P. No. 802 of 2005 will be in operation. 10. The C.M.A. is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J Date: 05.03.2010 Stp