THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1006 of 2020 and 168 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the orders passed in CMA No. 71 of 2015 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Warangal, dated 01.07.2020, wherein the learned Additional District Judge, Warangal have passed the orders modifying the order dated 04.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.475 of 2014 in O.S.No.314 of 2014 on the file of VII Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they are referred in O.S.No.314 of 2014.

3. Wherein, the appellant in the CMA No.71 of 2015, who is 2^nd defendant in the suit has preferred the present appeal No. 71 of 2015. As both the revisions are preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff vide CRP No.1006 of 2020 and CRP No.168 of 2021 against respondent/defendant assailing the order passed in CMA No. 71 of 2015. Hence, all the revision petitions are being taken up together and may be disposed of collectively. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as they are referred in O.S.No.314 of 2014.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.417 of 2014 in O.S.No.314 of 2014, wherein the learned VII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal have granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and injunction.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the CMA No.71 of 2015 is filed on the file of learned I-Additional District Judge, the learned Judge has passed the following order:

“that there is no dispute that originally Mr. T.Mysaiah is the owner of the schedule property and the claim of the plaintiff is that their vendor, Sri. B.Venkataiah, purchased the suit schedule property from T.Babu under simple sale deed in the month of April, 1971, and later sold it to Jakkula Saidaiah(appellant) under the registered sale deed vide Exhibit of P1 and P4”.

6. On the other hand, it is the claim of the respondents that Ms.S.Sailaja, who is the respondent No.1, purchased the extent of 3025 Sq.yds from T.Mysaiah under the registered sale deeds, from whom the respondent No. 2(the present appellant) purchased under registered agreement-cum-GPA and later it was transferred to respondent No.4.

7. Admittedly, the property is an open vacant site, and both parties are claiming possession over the suit schedule property, and there is a serious dispute with respect to the title of the schedule property, and considering the submissions made by both the parties, the learned District Judge in CMA NO.71 of 2015 has allowed the petition filed by Sri Jakkula Saidaiah(appellant) and directing both the parties to maintain status quo, till disposal of the main suit.

8. Having heard the counsel for both the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. During the course of argument, it is submitted that both the parties are ready to proceed with the trial of the suit, and even if the status quo orders are continued, both the parties are ready and willing to go ahead with the trial. This Court is of the opinion that, if both the parties continue to maintain status quo as ordered by the learned Additional District Judge in respect of the possession and the purpose will be served.

9. Hence, considering the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error committed by the learned I-Additional District Judge and the said revision petition is disposed of directing the trial court to proceed further in the suit and dispose the same accordingly without getting influenced with the findings of the I-Additional District Court. Hence, for the said reasons, the CRP is disposed of directing both the parties to maintain status quo, and the learned trial court is directed to take steps to dispose of the said suit as expeditiously as possible and both the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial court in disposal of the suit without t