M. Seetharama Murti, J.

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the unsuccessful respondents assailing the order, dated 02.06.2016 of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, passed in IA.No.374 of 2016 in AS.No.119 of 2016.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and of Sri B.V. Subbaiah, learned senior counsel representing Sri Krupachand Gogineni, learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the material record.

3. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs. The respondents herein are the defendants.

4. The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiffs brought OS.No.1512 of 2009 against the defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of three items of property, that is, 1066 Sq.yards or Ac.0-8.8 guntas; Ac.3-17.05 or 16584 Sq.yards and 500 Sq.yards in Survey no.204 of Shamshabad village and Mandal more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The defendants resisted the suit. On merits and after full fledged trial, the suit was decreed. Therefore, the unsuccessful defendants preferred the afore-said first appeal suit, AS.No.119 of 2016. Along with the appeal, the unsuccessful defendants filed I.A.No.374 of 2016 under Order 41 Rule 5 (2) of the Code requesting to suspend/stay the operation of decree and judgment of the trial court in the afore-stated suit. The plaintiffs filed a counter resisting the said application. By the order impugned in this appeal, the lower appellate Court allowed the petition of the defendants and directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the first appeal suit. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiffs preferred this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit as follows :

The lower appellate court erroneously granted status quo orders without assigning any reasons whatsoever and by simply observing that the trial Court granted status quo orders, on 26.11.2009, and therefore the status quo orders can be extended as the appeal suit is a continuation of the suit. The lower appellate court failed to discharge its duty in deciding the matter on merits. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction. After full fledged trial the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The status quo orders were also in favour of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit. Interim order in the nature of injunction or status quo will be effective till the disposal of the suit and comes to an end with the disposal of the suit by a judgment and decree. There is a status quo order pending disposal of the suit; and, when once the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed on merits after full fledged trial, the lower appellate court ought to have specified in the impugned order that the status quo is with reference to the possession of the plaintiffs instead of passing an ambiguous order. The lower appellate court was obligated under facts and in law to decide the IA on merits. The order impugned is no order in the eye of law as neither the pleadings of the parties were adverted to as required under the procedure nor were even contentions noted in the order. Further, in respect of the conclusion directing both the parties to maintain status quo no reasons much less valid reasons are assigned. Even though the plaintiffs' suit is decreed and there was a status quo order till the suit is decreed, the status quo orders granted during the pendency of the suit come to an end once the suit is decreed, and the decree granted on merits gets primacy and hence, merely on the ground that there was a status quo order during the pendency of the suit, the lower appellate court ought not to have granted status quo orders without deciding the matter on merits and without even specifying as to what is the status quo as on the date the order was granted.

6. Per contra, learne