THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.617 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.633 of 2001 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 24.07.2006. Against that, the petitioner filed A.S.No.3 of 2007 in the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. He has also filed I.A.No.881 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., with a prayer to grant temporary injunction. It was stated that she had the advantage of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The grievance of the petitioner is that the lower appellate Court did not pass any orders in the I.A. so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The very purpose of filing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. is to seek protection during the pendency of the main proceedings. Nearly three years have elapsed, since the appeal and I.A. were filed. By this time, the appeal itself could have been disposed of. If what is stated by the petitioner is true, there is a semblance of default on the part of the lower appellate Court. Hence, the civil revision petition is disposed of, directing that the lower appellate Court shall take up I.A.No.881 of 2001 in A.S.No.3 of 2007 and pass orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if necessary by advancing the matter after intimation to both the parties. The appeal shall also be disposed of within three (3) months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.02.2010. kdl