ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the docket order dated 24.04.2026, wherein the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Rajendranagar, instead of passing interim orders in I.A.No.252 of 2026 in O.S.No.62 of 2026.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs claiming to be the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and that the respondents/defendants have no right, title, interest or concern whatsoever in the suit land, however, the respondents/defendants have been unlawfully interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners instituted a suit in O.S.No.62 of 2026 before the learned Trial Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents. Along with the said suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.252 of 2026 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking to grant an ex parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating, encumbering or creating any third-party interest over the suit schedule property. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the learned Trial Court adjourned the said application vide Docket order dated 24.04.2026 to 27.04.2026 and thereafter to further dates without passing any order thereon. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to grant ad-interim injunction, pending disposal of the said interlocutory application by the learned Trial Court.

3. Heard Sri G. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and none appeared on behalf of respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the urgency expressed by the petitioners, the learned Trial Court ought to have granted ad-interim exparte injunction in favour of the petitioners. Inasmuch as inspite of service of notice on the concerned respondents and inspite of existence of threat of alienation in respect of suit schedule property, the learned Trial Court failed to exercise discretion. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the very object of granting interim injunction is to protect the status of the property during the pendency of the suit and if the respondents alienated the property during the pendency of the said application the same would result in irreparable loss and serious prejudice to the vested rights of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners pray that interim injunction be granted in their favour pending consideration of the said application by the learned Trial Court.

5. A perusal of the record reveals that by the impugned order, the learned Trial Court while issuing to the respondents, adjourned the matter to 27.04.2026 and thereafter further adjournment was granted to 05.05.2026 and ultimately now the said application is posted to 10.06.2026 for consideration of the said application. The only grievance of the petitioners is that despite service of notice on the concerned respondents against whom the petitioners are claiming relief particularly in the said I.A.No.252 of 2026, the learned Trial Court simply adjourned the matter to 10.06.2026, which according to the petitioners is causing grave prejudice to the interests of the petitioners.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court, to dispose of the I.A. No.252 of 2026 in O.S.No.62 of 2026, within a time frame.

7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to take up the I.A. No. 252 of 2026 and pass appropriate orders on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with la