HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P. No.2709, 2712 & 2718 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Heard both sides. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the main revision petitions themselves are being taken up for hearing and disposal of the same. Since all these revision petitions arose out of the common judgment and the parties are also one and the same, all these revisions are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. C.R.P.Nos.2709 and 2712 are directed against the common judgment passed in C.M.A.Nos.215 of 2008 and 343 of 2007 in I.A.Nos.1355 and 1356 in O.S.No.3645 of 2008, whereas C.R.P.No.2718 of 2010 is directed against the common judgment passed in C.M.A.No. 218 of 2008 in I.A.No.754 of 2008 in O.S.No.3645 of 2008. The main suit in O.S.No.3645 of 2008 on the file of the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is filed by the respondent herein, wherein it also filed two applications in I.A.Nos.1355 and 1356 of 2006 for seeking injunction restraining the petitioner’s company and its men from dismantling watchman’s room in the petition schedule property, whereas, the petitioner herein also filed I.A.No.754 of 2008 in the same suit, seeking ad interim injunction against the respondent herein from interfering or causing hindrance in construction of watch man/care taker room in the petition schedule property. However, the Court below after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed all the petitions. Against which, the respondent herein filed C.M.A.Nos.343 of 2007 and 215 of 2008 in I.A.Nos.1356 and 1355 of 2006, respectively, and the petitioner herein also filed C.M.A.No.218 of 2008 in I.A.No.754 of 2008 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hydeabad. The lower appellate Court, by its common judgment, dated 18-02-2010, allowed the appeals filed by the respondent herein in C.M.A.Nos.343 of 2007 and 215 of 2008 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein in C.M.A.No.218 of 2008. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful petitioner filed all these revision petitions. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material available on record, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, I am of the considered view that if these revisions are allowed at this stage without completion of the regular trial in the Court below, it would virtually amount to give a pre-matured finding. Further, this Court already granted status quo orders as long back in CRP.M.P.No.3636 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.2709 of 2010, dated 02-07-2010 and C.R.P.M.P.No.3652 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.2718 of 2010, dated 06-07-2010 and the same are still subsisting. In view of the same, without going into the merits of the cases, I deem it appropriate to dispose of all these revision petitions directing the Court below to take up the main suit itself and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this common order. It is also made clear that the status quo granted earlier by this Court, as mentioned in the above revisions, shall continue till the disposal of the main suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ 31st March 2011 KVR