The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.1787 of 2011 Dated 10th June, 2011 Between: Polaki Ramakrishna and 3 others. …Petitioners and Tripurana Venkata Ranganadha Rao …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri T.Rajasekhar Rao Counsel for the respondent: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: Order: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 29-04-2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Srikakulam, in IA.No.50 of 2011 in OS.No.8 of 2011. The petitioners are plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit filed for specific purpose of a purported agreement of sale against the respondent/defendant. Pending the suit, the petitioners filed IA.No.50 of 2011 and sought for an injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the plaint schedule property to third parties. An order of status quo was passed therein in favour of the petitioners on 17-02-2011. Thereafter, the respondent entered his appearance and insisted on disposal of the said IA. By Order, dated 29-04-2011, the learned District Judge has vacated the interim order of status quo while adjourning the IA to 31- 05-2011. In the said order, the learned District Judge observed that even though the respondent was pressing for disposal of the IA, the Counsel for the petitioners was not ready and therefore, he has vacated the order of status quo passed by him on 17-02-2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. I have heard Sri Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel, who filed caveat on behalf of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed before the Court, the docket proceedings of the lower Court in IA.No.50 of 2011, which show that while granting the order of status quo on 17-02-2011, the learned District Judge has adjourned the case to 18-03- 2011. On 18-03-2011, the advancement petition filed by the respondent was taken up and the order of status quo was extended until further orders by the learned Judge while adjourning the case to 18-04-2011. On the said date, the case was again adjourned to 25-04-2011, from which date, it was adjourned to 29-04-2011 for enquiry. On 29-04-2011, the order of status quo was vacated on the ground that the Counsel for the petitioners was not ready. A perusal of the above docket entries does not show that the case was adjourned to 18-04-2011 and 25-04-2011 at the instance of the petitioners’ Counsel. Only on 29-04-2011, the Counsel for the petitioners did not appear to have been ready to argue the case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge ought not to have vacated the status quo without giving atleast one more opportunity to the petitioners’ Counsel to argue the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the IA stood posted to 01-07-2011. In this view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned District Judge to make every effort to dispose of IA.No.50 of 2011 on that date. If it was not possible, for any reason, the same should be disposed of atleast within two weeks thereafter. Till disposal of the IA, the parties shall maintain status quo existing as on today with respect to the suit schedule property, As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, CAMP.No.2556 of 2011, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dated 10th June, 2011 lur