This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.387 of 2004 had been preferred by the appellants-defendants 6 to 8 as against the order in IA No.1325 of 2002 in OS No.44 of 2002 and 2nd defendant preferred CMA No.387 of 2004 as against the order in IA No.120 1 of 2003 in OS No.44 of 2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali respectively and these civil miscellaneous appeals were dismissed for default. CMAMP Nos.1174 of 2007 and 1159 of 2007

2. CMAMP Nos.1174 of 2007 and 1159 of 2007 are filed for setting aside the orders of dismissal made in the above civil miscellaneous appeals to restore the said appeals to file.

3. It is stated that the respective Counsel representing these appellants were held up elsewhere and at the relevant point of time the Counsel who was entrusted with the duty to represent these matters due to miscalculation of time, the said Counsel was not present and consequently these matters were dismissed for default and the respective affidavits filed in respect of these applications had been sworn to by the respective Counsel representing these parties. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the orders of dismissal dated 5.3.2007 are hereby set aside and the civil miscellaneous appeals are restored to file.

4. Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu and Sri J. Bhaskar Rao, learned Counsel representing the respective appellants in these civil miscellaneous appeals and Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned Counsel representing certain of the contesting respondents.

5. The Counsel representing the respective appellants in these civil miscellaneous appeals had taken this Court through the reasons which had been recorded by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances inasmuch as the respective shares of the parties not being in serious dispute, a Receiver could have been appointed and even if the learned Judge came to the conclusion that it may not be just and convenient to appoint a Receiver, an appropriate direction could have been given fixing reasonable amount instead of directing deposit of only Rs.60,000/- for every agricultural year especially taking into consideration the large extent of lands involved in the suit. The Counsel also had taken this Court through Exs.P 1 to P24 and Exs.R1 to R12 in this regard. Incidentally on the aspect of relief of temporary injunction, certain submissions were made that in the light of the facts and circumstances the possession of defendants 6 to 8 should have been protected.

6. Per contra, Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the common order made in both the applications and would maintain that in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, the learned Judge arrived at the correct conclusion. Even otherwise the Counsel would submit that in the light of the fact that the suit itself is a part-heard one and at this distant point of time inasmuch as the direction is being complied with, the said common order need not be disturbed by this Court.

7. Heard the Counsel and perused the findings recorded in the common order made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, in IA Nos.1325 of 2002 and 1201 of 2003 in OS No.44 of 2002.

8. The appellants in CMA No.385 of 2004 are defendants 6 to 8 in the suit and they filed an application IA No.1325 of 2002 praying for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondents therein from disturbing their alleged possession over the plaint A schedule landed property. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that prima facie the possession of the 1st defendant over the plaint A schedule landed property to be believed being a resident of the said village, was not inclined to grant the relief of temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, CMA No.385 of 2004 was preferred.

9. The 2nd defendant filed IA No.1201 of 2003 praying for the relief of 2008(1) FR-F-28 appointment of Re