ORDER 1. DELAY CONDONED. 2. LEAVE GRANTED. 3. HEARD PARTIES. 4. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 4-10-2001 WHEREIN THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS CONFIRMED AN ORDER OF THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD PASSED IN A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE HAS REJECTED THE PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THE REJECTION OF THE PLAINT IS ON THE GROUNDS (A) THAT THE LAND WAS NOTIFIED TO BE ACQUIRED. BUT THE PLAINT ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN DROPPED; (B) THAT NO PERMISSION UNDER THE URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT HAD BEEN ACQUIRED AND THAT THE APPLICATION FOR SUCH PERMISSION HAD BEEN REJECTED. IN THE PLAINT IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE PERMISSION WAS NOT GRANTED AS THE RESPONDENT (THE DEFENDANT) WITHDREW HIS APPLICATION. IF THE PETITIONERS SUCCEED IN THEIR SUIT THEY COULD APPLY AGAIN OR THEY MAY BE ABLE TO CHALLENGE THE REJECTION EVEN NOW. THUS, IN OUR VIEW, AT THE HIGHEST THIS COULD BE A GROUND ON WHICH RELIEF MAY NOT BE ULTIMATELY GRANTED TO THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT BUT AT THIS STAGE THE PLAINT CANNOT BE REJECTED ON THIS GROUND. IT HAS FINALLY BEEN HELD THAT AS THERE IS NO ALTERNATE PRAYER FOR DAMAGES AND FOR REFUND THEREFORE THE PLAINT STANDS REJECTED. EVEN IF THE REFUND CANNOT ULTIMATELY BE GRANTED, A REJECTION OF THE PLAINT CAN ONLY BE ON THE FOUR GROUNDS MADE UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11. IN OUR VIEW, NONE OF THE GROUNDS SET OUT IN ORDER 7 RULE 11 HAVE BEEN MADE OUT. 5. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE BOTH THE ORDERS AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT. WRITTEN STATEMENT TO BE FILED WITHIN A MONTH FROM TODAY. DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE WEEK THEREAFTER. AS THE MATTER IS OLD, THE TRIAL COURT IS REQUESTED TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE AND IN ANY CASE WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY. 6. THE APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.