HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4417 of 2011 & 4033 of 2012 COMMON ORDER : 1. Since the parties in both the revision petitions are one and the same i.e. the petitioners in C.R.P.No.4417 of 2011 are the respondents in C.R.P.No.4033 of 2012 and as the common point arises for consideration in both the revisions, these two revision petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. C.R.P.No.4417 of 2011 is filed against the order dated 22.08.2011 which was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, directing the Police not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property under the guise of status quo order dated 17.08.2011. Admittedly, the impugned orders in this revision petition are the consequential orders dated 17.08.2011, which are questioned in C.R.P.No.4033 of 2012. 2 GAC, J CRP.Nos.4417 of 2011 & 4033 of 2012 3. C.R.P.No.4033 of 2012 is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.40 of 2011, which was filed for perpetual injunction under Rules 6 and 14 of the A.P.Agency Rules, 1924. In the said suit, an interlocutory application i.e. I.A.No.22 of 2011 has been filed seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Initially an ad interim injunction was granted in the said I.A. on 21.03.2011, but later, on 17.08.2011, the Special Assistant Agent/Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam has vacated the injunction orders and directed the petitioners and respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the said orders of status quo, this revision has been filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.22 of 2011, contending that the docket order does not disclose about vacating the ad interim injunction order passed by the Court and the respondents, in collusion, have fabricated the order ante dated and brought the order dated 17.08.2011 into existence. It is also the contention of the 3 GAC, J CRP.Nos.4417 of 2011 & 4033 of 2012 petitioners that there is no endorsement on the docket of I.A.No.22 of 2011 by the learned Judge as to passing of the said order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. Initially, there was a direction by this Court on 17.10.2011 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam to make available the entire case record relating to O.S.No.40 of 2011 on its file through a special messenger, to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by 27.10.2011. As the record was not received, there were reminders to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate from time to time and subsequently, this Court has received the entire case record including the docket proceedings. 6. The record in O.S.No.40 of 2011 discloses that the said suit is still pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court and the learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that both the parties are maintaining status quo as per the orders of trial Court with regard to the property in question till date. Though no stay is granted by this Court, the suit before the trial Court could not be proceeded with, as the entire record was transmitted to this Court. 4 GAC, J CRP.Nos.4417 of 2011 & 4033 of 2012 7. Since the dispute between the parties is pending for more than 11 years, with the consent of both the parties, without going into merits, both these revision petitions are disposed of directing the trial Court to dispose of the main suit itself i.e. O.S.No.40 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of Six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the disposal of the suit, both the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. 8. The Registry is directed to re-transmit the entire case record to the trial Court within a week from today. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 21.04.2022 and shall co-operate with the trial Court to dispose of the suit within Six months as directed above. No order as to costs. 9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 11.04.2022 ajr