ORDER
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. On 18-3-1996 list, the name of Sri P.S. Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners was not shown. Therefore, he could not appear and make his submissions. Under these circumstances, the order made by the Court on 18-3-1996 is recalled.
2. The revision petitioners arc the plaintiffs in O.S.No.261 of 1990. The suit is filed for restraining the respondent-defendant from interferin with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule residential house. In the suit -I.A. No. 1660 of 1990,, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs. The learned trial judge ordered that application ex parte and ultimately on 6-6-1990 made the interim injunction absolute. The matter was carried by the defendant to the appellate Court in CMA. No. 3/91 The learned appellate Judge by his order dated 26-8-1995 allowed the appeal of the defendant and set aside the interim injunction order granted by the trial Court. Hence this revision by the plaintiffs. This Court on 15-6-1995 made an interim order directing the respondent not to dis-possesses the plaintiffs, pending disposal of the C.R.P. and the interim direction still operates.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset contended that the suit file by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs was not maintainable by virtue of the provisions of Section 121 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. Secondly he contends that the possession of the suit schedule house property was taken over with the help of local police on 7-6-1995. Pressing these two grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that no case is made out to interfere with the order made by the learned appellate Judge.
5. The authorities created under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short “the Act”) have limited jurisdiction and they are required to function strictly within the parameter the statute. It cannot be said that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction to interfere with this matter is taken away under all circumstances. A civil dispute which is not the subject matter of ad judication by the authorities under the Act and if such dispute is raised in a suit, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not ousted. Be that as it may, this is a matter where the learned trial judge is required to record his finding after due trial and I do not find any necessity at this stage to record any finding on the question of jurisdiction raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. The facts stated supra indicate that the revision petitioners-plaintiffs have had the benefit of temporary injunction from the beginning of 1990 till date. The suit is for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-Officer from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule residential house property. At this stage, if the application filed by the revision petitioners-plaintiffs is rejected, it virtually tantamounts to rejection of the suit itself. Having regard to the situation hitherto obtaining, I do not think it just and equitable in the interest of equity to upset the position hitherto obtaining and interest of the parties be met by directing the learned trial Judge to expedite the suit within a reasonable and specified time.
6. In the light to what is stated supra, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part and the order under revision is set aside and in substitution of the order made by the learned trial Judge, it is directed that the parties to the suit shall maintain status quo regarding the possession of the suit schedule house property pending disposal of the suit. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.