HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.No.4382 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, in C.M.A.No.1 of 2009 dated 19.08.2009, whereby the petitioner-plaintiff was directed to proceed with the construction of the house in his site leaving five feet from the alleged common and joint wall towards west. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the house bearing Door No.3-3-84 siutate in Madi street, Narayanapet and he obtained municipal permission for reconstruction of his house. When he started construction, the respondent-defendant being his western neighbour objected the same without any plausible cause and that he filed a suit being O.S.No.116 of 2008 for perpetual injunction against the respondent-defendant restraining him from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit house. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.343 of 2008 seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court on a consideration of the entire material available on record disposed of the said application directing both the parties to maintain status quo to the extent of the alleged common wall. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred C.M.A.No.1 of 2009 before the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet and the same was allowed by order dated 19.08.2009 directing the petitioner-plaintiff to proceed with the construction of the house in his site leaving five feet from the alleged common and joint wall towards west. It is against this order, the present revision is filed by the plaintiff. Heard both sides. Apparently, the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet directing both the parties to maintain status quo to the extent of the alleged common wall appears to be quite reasonable. Unnecessarily, the petitioner-plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2009 before the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet and invited the impugned order. However, the suit was filed for injunction simplicitor, the same can be decided at the earliest. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of the suit, I feel it appropriate, in the interest of justice to direct the respective parties to main status quo with regard to the alleged common wall during the pendency of the main suit. Meanwhile, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 10-03-2010 Gsn.