HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.82 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against status quo docket order passed in I.A.No.1375 of 2004 in O.S.No.526 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Rajahmundry, dated 10.12.2004. The appellant is the 5th respondent and the Respondents 1 to 3 are the petitioners and the respondents 4 to 7 are the respondents 1 to 4 in the interlocutory application. For convenience sake, the parties will be referred hereafter to as they are arrayed in the interlocutory application. The petitioners filed the suit for injunction against the respondents in respect of the property scheduled therein. They also filed the interlocutory application for granting temporary injunction in respect of the property pending disposal of the suit and the lower Court delivered the impugned order on 10.12.2004 which reads as under: “Heard. Perused the documents and other material papers. Issue urgent notice to respondents by 27.12.2004. Till then status quo is ordered”. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. It is contended by the appellant that no speaking order was passed directing him to maintain the status quo of the property and proper reasons should have been given by the lower Court while ordering so. The point for determination is whether the order passed by the lower Court is proper or not? It is an established principle of law that even while granting status quo orders, there should be proper reasoning. Unless it is clear as to which of the parties to the suit are in possession of the property, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion to pass such status quo order. In other words, the lower Court should have passed speaking order while directing to maintain the status quo of the property. Therefore, the order passed by the lower Court is not tenable and is liable to be set aside. Further, due to the pendency of the C.M.A. before this Court, the corresponding suit record has been kept here by reason of which the trial of the suit has been held up. Hence, the records are directed to be sent back to the lower Court as early as possible, for the disposal of the suit. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of order and relevant papers from this Court, by giving top priority. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J 14th March, 2011 PNV