IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4190 OF 2008, C.R.P.Nos.1296 & 1298 OF 2010 C.R.P.No.4190 of 2008 Between: Farooq Ahmed and two others …Petitioners A n d Mohd.Quader and three others ..Respondents C.R.P.No.1296 OF 2010 Between: Farooq Ahmed …Petitioner A n d Hameed Quadri and another ..Respondents C.R.P.No.1298 OF 2010 Between: S.M.Ibrahim and two others …Petitioners A n d Mohd.Quadeer and three others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.4190 OF 2008, C.R.P.No.1296 & 1298 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: CRP.No.4190 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 08.07.2008 in I.A.No.1590 of 2007 in I.A.No.60 of 2007 in O.S.No.223 of 2007, on the file the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein (D-4, D-1 & D-2) under Section 91(B) read with Section 151 CPC to revoke the leave granted in registering the suit in I.A.No.60 of 2007, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 herein, the plaintiffs, filed the suit against the petitioners and another for injunction in respect of plaint schedule property restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment. The plaintiffs filed application I.A.No.60 of 2007 under Section 91(B) CPC seeking leave of the Court to file the suit and the same was granted. According to the plaintiffs, they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit premises of 60 sq. yards situated in door No.22-8-267, Yousuf Bazar, Hyderabad, having purchased the same from Zainab Begum under a registered sale deed dated 04.01.2007. The plaintiffs allege that on 17.01.2007 and 20.01.2007, the defendants made vain attempts to encroach upon the suit property. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.119 of 2007 for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The defendants filed a counter opposing the same. By order dated 14.03.2007, the said application was dismissed, after full-fledged enquiry, observing that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.365 of 2007. By order dated 01.06.2009, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the appeal, observing that in view of the orders in C.M.A.No.368 of 2007, the present appeal C.M.A.No.365 of 2007 became liable to be dismissed. Assailing the same, the defendants filed C.R.P.No.4190 of 2008. 4. C.M.A.No.368 of 2007 arose out of the orders dated 14.03.2007 in I.A.No.101 of 2007 in O.S.No.223 of 2007, a suit filed by the defendants in O.S.No.289 of 2007. In the said suit O.S.No.223 of 2007, the plaintiffs therein filed I.A.No.101 of 2007 for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 seeking to restrain the defendants therein from interfering with the plaintiffs’ activities in the suit schedule property. The suit property in both the suits is one and the same. By order dated 14.03.2007, the trial Court, after full-fledged enquiry, allowed the said application granting temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants therein, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.289 of 2007 and three others filed C.M.A.No.368 of 2007. By order dated 01.06.2009, the said appeal was dismissed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, observing that the plaintiffs therein prima facie established that the suit schedule premises was used as a wrestling ground and the defendants therein have not shown any prima facie rights and the issues relating to title and possession of the property are to be ascertained during the course of the trial in the main suit. Assailing the same, the defendants in O.S.No.223 of 2007 filed C.R.P.No.1298 of 2010. 5. The suit is of the year 2007. Contentious issues have been raised by both parties regarding title and possession in respect of the self-same property site of 60 sq. yards. As rightly observed by the Courts below, the same falls for consideration during the course of trial in the main suit. After full-fledged enquiry, the trial Court found that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.223 of 2007 established a prima facie case in their favour and, therefore, injunction was granted restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and activities over the suit property till the disposal of the suit, with a further direction to both parties to get ready for expeditious trial and the said order was confirmed by the appellate Court. The defendants in the said suit O.S.No.223 of 2007 subsequently filed O.S.No.289 of 2007 and sought injunction in respect of the same property and again after full-fledged enquiry, the said petition was dismissed and the appeal C.M.A.No.365 of 2007 was also dismissed consequent upon dismissal of C.M.A.No.368 of 2007. 6. This Court, while admitting C.R.P.No.1296 of 2010, granted interim stay on 30.03.2010 and no interim order was passed in C.R.No.1298 of 2010. 7. As the suit is of the year 2007 and the trial Court directed both parties to get ready for trial in the year 2007 itself and the issues relating to title and possession have to be necessarily gone into by the trial Court on evidence that may be adduced during the course of the trial, it is considered neither just nor desirable to go into the merits of the respective claims of possession over the suit property at this stage in the present proceedings. Both parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit and the trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the same, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties shall maintain status quo obtained as on today in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. 8. Insofar as C.R.P.No.4190 of 2008 is concerned, the contention of the petitioners is that the leave was obtained by suppressing material facts and the trail Court erred in holding that the petitioners failed to show their possession even though copy of the warrant and panchanama are filed and marked as Exs.P-13 and P-14. The petitioners further contend that the suit property is a private property, but not a public property and, therefore, the question of granting leave under Section 91 CPC does not arise. It is open to the petitioners to raise the said contention before the trial Court along with other defences and question the maintainability of the suit. In view of the above direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, no further orders are required to be passed in this civil revision petition. It is open to the trial Court to consider the question of maintainability of the suit on its merits. 9. In the result, the civil revision petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 05th July, 2011 Lrkm.