THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.231 OF 2010 DT.15-04-2010 (PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO) Between: Sri Suvarchala Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer, Paraspet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and another. ……………Appellants Vs. Mohd.Siddiq and two others. ……………..Respondents. JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed by the appellant/third respondent under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Appeal, questioning the orders passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.V.M.P.No.3959 of 2009 in W.P.M.P.No.32071 of 2009 in W.P.No.24662 of 2009, dated 22.01.2009 wherein and whereby the interim order granted on 13.11.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.32071 of 2009 was made absolute. Heard Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. On hearing both the learned counsel and on perusing the material placed before this court, it is seen that pending writ petition, the learned Single Judge granted interim order on 13.11.2009 directing both the parties to maintain status quo as on that date, for a period of three weeks. Thereafter made the interim order absolute, subject to the condition of the first respondent/petitioner depositing Rs.1,37,600/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of orders of the Government, i.e., 18.10.2001 and if the first respondent/petitioner fails to deposit the amount, it was made open for the respondents to implement the order of eviction. Hence the present appeal is filed seeking to suspend the order of the learned Single Judge. Having regard to certain directions given by the learned Single Judge while making order of stay of eviction absolute, we think that it would be just and proper that sale of the property in question in favour of the appellant can be decided in the writ petition basing on certain conditions and norms as contemplated in the terms of contract and as there is no objection from the learned counsel for the respondents that stay can be restricted to the extent of eviction only, the writ appeal is liable to be disposed of by making it clear that the interim order granted earlier, which has been made absolute shall be restricted only to the extent of eviction of the premises, which is in occupation of the contesting respondent herein and all other observations and directions given by the learned Single Judge needs to be considered at the time of final disposal of the writ petition, uninfluenced by the observations made in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. Post the writ petition expeditely for final hearing on 02.08.2010. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., _______________ R.KANTHA RAO J., Dt.15.04.2010 tjs