Judgment : This revision arises out of the order, dated 03.09.2010, in I.A. No.530 of 2008 in O.S. No.20 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by the revision petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to reject the plaint in O.S. No.20 of 2006 in view of status quo and leave granted in S.L.P.No.21184 of 2004 by the Apex Court, was dismissed. 2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No.20 of 2006. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction and mutation of the suit schedule property in Municipal records. 3. The revision petitioners, inter alia, contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material on record as well as the arguments advanced in support thereof in proper perspective and thereby misdirected itself in dismissing the petition by passing the impugned order; that the suit O.S. No.20 of 2006 is filed in utter disregard to the orders of the Apex Court by the respondent-plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction as well as mutation of the property and that the defendants in the said suit, who are the revision petitioners herein, filed I.A.No.530 of 2008 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in view of the orders of the Apex Court, which are to the effect that such proceedings are not to be initiated as directed by this Court without the leave of the Apex Court. The said orders were passed by the Apex Court on 25.10.2004. It is contended that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the petition considering that the respondent- plaintiff in the said suit was not a party to the proceedings before the Apex Court; that the trial Court failed to consider the contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioners - defendants that any party having the semblance of right or interest in any suit schedule property, pending before any Court, including the Apex Court, the orders passed by any Court including the Apex Court are binding on them. It is also contended that the trial Court erred in not considering the orders passed by the Apex Court which are binding on it as the orders passed by the Apex Court are the law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the same are binding on all Courts and parties. 4. The case of the revision petitioners is that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the property in old Survey No.18 corresponding to new Survey No.24 of Daira (village), Himayathnagar Mandal, Hyderabad. The respondent is claiming the property in Survey No.19 at Kavadiguda which is 2 ½ kilometers far away from the suit schedule property. The property of the revision petitioners is Inam land covered by Munthakab bearing No.3176/1312 Fasli. The certified copies of the said Inam have been filed which were issued by the Chief Commissioner. As per Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, the Inam Tribunal issued Occupancy Right Certificate and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in favour of the revision petitioners. The predecessors of the revision petitioners and the revision petitioners have been in occupation and possession of the suit schedule property. The respondent is making false claim over the suit schedule property by creating false numbers though his property is situated elsewhere. The revision petitioners stated that the Apex Court granted status-quo and leave in S.L.P.(C) No.21184 of 2004 and the subject matter therein is covered by the suit schedule property. The matter is sub-judice before the Apex Court wherein leave is granted and Civil Appeal No.873 of 2007 is numbered. Therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction particularly as the respondent did not seek declaration of title. 5. The case of the respondent is that the order of the Apex Court applies to the parties before it but not to third parties and particularly it is not applicable to the respondent who is not a party to the proceedings before it. The respondent is not claiming the property in Survey No.19, but he is claiming the plot of 1000 square yards comprised in Survey Nos.22 and 24 situated at Daira Village, Lower Tankbund, Hyderabad. The Occupancy Right Certificate claimed by the revision petitioners was not filed before the Prevention of Land Grabbing Tribunal or Special Court. The respondent is not claiming the property in Survey No.19, but he is claiming the plot of 1000 square yards comprised in Survey Nos.22 and 24 situated at Daira Village, Lower Tankbund, Hyderabad. The Occupancy Right Certificate claimed by the revision petitioners was not filed before the Prevention of Land Grabbing Tribunal or Special Court. The revision petitioners have suppressed the fact of cancellation of Occupancy Right Certificate by this Court in C.R.P.No.1104 of 2004 and are trying to mislead the Court. The documents referred by the revision petitioners have been manipulated subsequent to filing of the suit. 6. Heard the learned counsel on side of petitioners and perused the material made available on record. 7. Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case and also having heard the counsel, the only point that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the orders of the Apex Court? 8. The main controversy between the parties is with regard to jurisdiction of the trial Court in entertaining the suit. The respondent filed O.S. No.20 of 2006 seeking perpetual injunction and mutation in respect of the suit schedule property bearing Plot No.1-2-605/1(P) admeasuring 1000 square yards in Survey Nos.22 and 24 situated at Diara Village, Lower Tank bund, Hyderabad. The claim of the revision petitioners is that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of Inam land situated in Survey No.18 (old) corresponding to new Survey Nos. 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 admeasuring Ac.5 -26gts situated at Diara village, Himayathnagar Mandal, Hyderabad, District. The claim of the respondent is that the suit schedule property is situated in Survey Nos.22 and 24 at Daira village, Lower Tankbund, Hyderabad. There is also dispute with regard to location of the suit schedule property in Survey Nos.22 and 24. 9. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the property claimed by the respondent and the subject matter of the S.L.P is one and the same, as such, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the orders passed by the Apex Court dated 07.10.2004, 25.10.2004 and 12.12.2004. 10. 9. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the property claimed by the respondent and the subject matter of the S.L.P is one and the same, as such, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the orders passed by the Apex Court dated 07.10.2004, 25.10.2004 and 12.12.2004. 10. The contention of the respondent is that a third party filed C.R.P.No.1104 of 2004 before this Court challenging the Occupancy Right Certificate granted to the revision petitioners and the same was allowed cancelling the Occupancy Right Certificate vide order dated 10.09.2004. While canceling the Occupancy Right Certificate, this Court granted status quo for a period of four weeks from that day. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petitioners carried the matter to the Apex Court by filing S.L.P.(C) No.21184 of 2004 and the Apex Court initially ordered to continue the status quo granted by this Court and it subsequently ordered that the proceedings as directed by this Court shall not be initiated without the leave of the Apex Court. The orders passed by the Apex Court apply to the parties before it and they are not applicable to the respondent who is not a party to the said proceedings. 11. The following orders were passed by the Apex Court in the S.L.P. on different dates. 07.10.2004: “Status quo order granted by the High Court shall continue till the date of hearing” 25.10.2004: “Issue notice. The proceedings as directed by the High Court shall not be initiated without the leave of this Court” 12.12.2004: “Special leave granted. Printing dispensed with. The appeal shall be heard on the SLP paper books. Parties may file additional documents within four weeks. Interim orders to continue. Nor order on the application for impleadment”. 12. Though there is dispute with regard to old survey number, it appears that the property claimed by the respondent and the subject matter before the Apex Court is one and the same and the same is covered in new Survey Nos. 22 and 24. In the S.L.P. filed by the revision petitioners, the Apex Court ordered to continue the status quo granted by this Court in the C.R.P. and also ordered that the proceedings as directed by this Court shall not be initiated without the leave of the Apex Court. 22 and 24. In the S.L.P. filed by the revision petitioners, the Apex Court ordered to continue the status quo granted by this Court in the C.R.P. and also ordered that the proceedings as directed by this Court shall not be initiated without the leave of the Apex Court. In that view of the matter, the respondent cannot take stand that the orders passed by the Apex Court apply only to the parties before it, and they are not applicable to him. It is settled law that any party having the semblance of right or interest in any suit schedule property, pending before any Court, including the Apex Court, the orders passed by any Court including the Apex Court are binding on them, as rightly contended on behalf of the revision petitioners. Therefore, the orders passed by the Apex Court are not only binding on the parties before it, but also on all those who have semblance of right or interest in the subject property. The orders passed by the Apex Court are the law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The findings of the trial Court that the respondent is not a party to the proceedings either in the C.R.P. or the proceedings in the S.L.P. before the Apex Court and that the order of the Apex Court that the proceedings as directed by this Court in C.R.P. No.1104 of 2004 shall not be initiated without the leave of the Apex Court is only binding on the respondents in the S.L.P, are not sustainable. 13. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not stand legal scrutiny and the same is liable to be set-aside. 14. In the result, the C.R.P. is allowed and the impugned order dated 3rd September, 2010 in I.A. No.530 of 2008 in O.S. No. 20 of 2006 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is set-aside, and the I.A. is hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.