Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order 28.5.2010 passed by the District Judge, Thiruvallore, in I.A.No.74 of 2010 in A.S.No.26 of 2010, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The revision petitioners herein filed the suit O.S.No.246 of 2008, and it was decreed. As against which the respondents/defendants preferred appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2010. During the pendency of the appeal, I.A.No.74 of 2010 was filed, in which, the appellate authority passed the order on 28.5.2010; the operative portion of which would run thus: "13. But, however the 1st appellant is the Sri Kanchi Kamakotti Sanadhana Dharma Education and Health Trust. The above trust is running a college in the name of Sri Sankara Arts and Science college at Kumbakonam. Now the +2 results were published and the willing students are approached the college for admission. For the last two years the appellants are only administrating the trust including the college. The appellants are having rights to appeal before this court as against the decree and judgment of the trial Court. I found if stay is not granted the irreparable loss and the injuries caused to the appellants are more serious than the respondents. Considering the interest of students who are studying in the above college, the admissions of new students and in the interest of justice, I inclined to grant status quo in favour of petitioners as an interim relief. 14. In the result, interim relief is granted to maintain status quo by way of ordering suspension of the decree until further orders from this court." 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order this revision has been filed by the plaintiffs on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would be to the effect that the trial Court upheld the contentions of the plaintiffs, whereas the appellate authority turned down the same by ordering status-quo and as such, the plaintiffs will not be able to function; in fact, by 9.9.2010, the three years period of Secretary ship of B.N.Viswanathan-the second petitioner herein would expire and in such a case, the revision petitioners in the revision prayed for setting aside the order of the appellate authority in ordering status-quo. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds of revision would justify the contention of the revision petitioners: However, he would make a clear submission that in view of the fact that by 9.9.2010 itself the Secretary ship of B.N.Viswanathan-the second petitioner herein would expire, he would agree for passing order to the effect that the appeal itself should be disposed of on or before 31.7.2010 and pending that the existing arrangement of the defendants conducting the administration could go, however, they should not, pending disposal of the appeal, pass any further resolution, so as to defeat the interest of the revision petitioners herein. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would have no objection for such an arrangement and passing orders accordingly. 6. Hence, this revision is disposed of as under: The respondents/defendants shall carry on with the administration as they are now doing, however, they shall not pass any further resolution as against the revision petitioners herein. The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal itself on or before 31.7.2010, after hearing both sides. 7. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.