THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.R.P.No.4794 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in C.M.A.30 of 2007, which was filed against the orders in I.A.No.97 of 2007 in O.S.No.60 of 2007, which was filed by the plaintiff in the suit for permanent injunction. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit and he claimed that he is the owner of the suit property admeasuring Ac.9.19 guntas situated at Pegallapadu village of Tekulapalli Mandal. The property was purchased by his brother Lakkineni Veeraiah under an unregistered document and he came into the possession of the property and the property was mutated in the name of Veeraiah in revenue records. After partition between the plaintiff and his brother in 1969, the scheduled land fell to the share of the plaintiff and thereafter he applied for mutation and started cultivating the land. In 1978 one Kota Somaiah filed a suit in O.S.No.18 of 1978 before the District Munsif Court, Yellandu against the plaintiff for perpetual injunction, and the same was later transferred to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and renumbered as O.S.123 of 1986 and thereafter Kota Somaiah died and his wife Kota Somamma and daughter Balamma came as legal representatives and the suit was dismissed on 24.09.1991, after full trial, wherein a direction was given to incorporate the name of Lakkineni Venkateswara Rao as pattadar(plaintiff) and no appeal was filed against that order and while things stood thus, the present respondent tried to occupy the land without any right. The present first respondent is the daughter of the deceased plaintiff in O.S.No.123 of 2008 and the second respondent is the daughter of first respondent, who belong to scheduled caste community and they gave false complaint against the petitioner. The respondents without any right tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property. The respondents have filed counter contending that Kota Somaiah, who is the owner of the property is in possession of the property during his life time and thereafter the respondents came into the possession of the property as sole legal representatives. The petitioner obtained an exparte injunction. The property was never sold by Somaiah to Veeraiah the brother of the petitioner nor anybody else and he continued in possession till his death and he filed O.S.No.18 of 1978, which was renumbered as O.S.No.123 of 1996 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. 3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem after considering the entire material on record dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner is a trespasser and he could not be granted injunction against the true owners and that as per the material available, there was no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and the same was confirmed in C.M.A. 3. While the revision was filed, a status quo order was passed without any injunction and without giving any finding that who exactly is in possession of the property. 4. When there is no finding by this Court as to who exactly is in possession of the property and when two courts held that the present respondent is in possession of the property, there is no justification in continuing the status quo order and the same is hereby vacated. 5. The revision is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of the earlier litigation, which was started in the year 1978, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit O.S.60 of 2007 expeditiously, by treating the same as an identified case. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 4th August 2009 Rns