Common Order:

1) With the consent of both sides, these two Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order.

2) The revision petitioner herein filed O.S.No.85 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam, for declaration of title over the plaint “A” schedule land and for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants, their men and agents to refrain from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint “A‟ schedule land.

3) The respondents/defendants filed written statements. The suit was dismissed for default on 09.12.2014 and restored on 02.01.2023.

4) The petitioner after restoration of the suit filed I.A.No.305 of 2023 under Order 39 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC seeking to grant interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. Learned Trial Court by an order dated 12.01.2024 directed both the parties to the suit to maintain status quo till 25.01.2024 and extended the same till further orders on 15.10.2025. In the meanwhile, the respondents / defendants filed I.A.No.113 of 2024 seeking to vacate the status quo order. The learned Trial Court subsequently vide order dated 27.10.2025 vacated the interim order dated 12.01.2024 and allowed I.A.No.113 of 2024. Aggrieved by the said order CRP No.3027 of 2025 was filed.

5) It may be pertinent to note that the petitioner herein also filed I.A.No.241 of 2023 under Order 39 Rule 1 and Section 151 of CPC seeking to refrain the respondents / defendants by means of interim order from alienating / creating any registered documents in favour of third parties, pending disposal of the suit. In the said application, the learned Trial Court passed a separate order dated 12.01.2024 directing the parties to maintain status quo till 25.01.2024, extended the same from time to time and ultimately vacated it by the orders dated 27.10.2025 in I.A.No.114 of 2023. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed CRP No.3033 of 2025.

6) Heard Mr.M.R.K. Chakravarthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Kale Vijaya Raj, learned counsel representing the respondents. Perused the material on record.

7) On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for adjudication is “Whether the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the case?”

8) At the outset, it may be noted that the suit was filed in the year 2003 and the relevant aspects with regard to the dismissal of the same for default, restoration of the same etc., need not be dealt with in detail. Suffice to state that during the pendency of the suit, the above two referred Interlocutory Applications were filed and learned Trial Court passed orders mentioned supra. Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court to the docket orders filed along with the material papers, inter alia, submits that the learned Trial Court after giving sufficient opportunity to the respondents / defendants and taking note of their conduct in resorting to delay tactics, as also the alienation of suit schedule property through the Registered sale deeds in favour of third parties during the pendency of the suit, granted order of status quo to prevent abuse of process of law and to meet the ends of justice. He submits that the respondents / defendants did not cooperate with the hearing of I.As., did not even choose to attend hearing, that the status quo order contains cogent reasons and instead of appreciating the said aspects, the learned Trial Court under a misconception and misappropriation of law, vacated the status quo order, without going into the merits of the case. It is his submission that the learned Trial Judge went wrong in vacating the order of status quo by referring to decision of this Court in Boya Kistamma Vs. Boya Suri(CRPNo.2029 of 2025, dt.10.10.2025 (APHC)) and as if he is sitting in revision over the said order. He submits that the orders under revision suffers from material irregularities and constitutes erroneous exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Trial Court and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

9) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents made submissions inter alia to the effect that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. He submits that it is in fact, the petitioner, who is resorting to delaying tactics, dragging on the suit on one pretext or the other. He submits that a detailed counter affidavit is filed setting out the relevant aspects, that the conduct of the petitioner/ plaintiff is blameworthy. Vacation of the status quo orders does not cause prejudice to the petitioner / plaintiff, as in the ultimate event of the petitioner succeeding in the suit, the sale transactions if any may become invalid as the same took place during the pendency of the suit. Making the said submission the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions. On a pointed query of the Court, learned counsel on instructions submits that no alienations were made subsequent to the status quo order dated 12.01.2014.

10) While the undisputed position, therefore, appears to be that during the pendency of the suit certain alienations were made, this Court is not required to go into the validity or otherwise of the same. Both the parties are blaming each other for delay in disposal of the suit. Be that as it may. While granting orders of the status quo and extending the same from time to time, the learned Trial Judge made observations about the conduct of the respondents / defendants and obviously it is one of the factors which prompted the learned Trial Judge to grant orders of “status quo’. Admittedly, the same continued for some time and ultimately came to be vacated through the orders under revision.

11) However, while doing so, the learned Trial Judge, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had not examined the matter on merits, but by relying on the decision of Boya Kistamma case referred to supra. In the said decision, a learned Judge of this Court was dealing with the order passed by the learned Trial Court granting order of “status quo’, without recording a finding as to who is in possession of the property. The learned Judge after detailed discussion of the matter with reference to the phrase “status quo” and its meaning / definition contained in different Dictionaries and opinion of the Apex Court, found fault with the granting of orders of “status quo’ in a vague manner. The learned single Judge exercising powers under supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court ultimately set aside the order of the Trial Court. The said decision is misapplied by the learned Trial Judge while considering the petitions to vacate the status quo order. The learned Trial Judge was required to consider the matter with reference to the rival contentions, the merits therein and the material available on record, but erroneously went into the aspect of not recording any finding on the possession, as laid down in the above referred judgment. The learned Trial Court is not exercising the powers of revision nor has it any powers of the Appellate Court. The impugned orders, under said circumstances, therefore are not sustainable. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner.

12) In the result, the impugned orders are set aside.

13) However, instead of directing the learned Trial Judge to pass appropriate orders in the vacate stay petitions afresh, keeping in view that the suit is pending from the last 23 years, it is deemed it appropriate to issue a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the suit, by fixing a time limit, while directing the parties to maintain status quo. The counsel on both sides, have not objected for disposal of the matter on the proposed lines.

14) In view of the same, the learned Trial Judge shall make an endeavor to dispose of the subject matter suit along with miscellaneous applications, if any, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, by giving preference to the matter within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15) Till disposal of the suit, parties to the subject matter litigation shall maintain status quo with regard to the I.A. schedule property, existing as on today in all respects. The Civil Revision Petition Nos.3027 and 3033 of 2025 are accordingly disposed of, with the above directions.

16) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, in these Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed.

C.R.P.No.2734 of 2025

17) The petitioners / defendants in O.S.No.85 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, aggrieved by non-disposal of I.A.No.241 of 2023, filed by the respondent / plaintiff instituted the present revision petition on 26.03.2025. However, vide order dated 27.10.2025, learned Trial Judge disposed of the said I.A. In view of the same, the revision petition is rendered infructuous.

18) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition No.2734 of 2025 is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

19) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand dismissed.