IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 1901 OF 2008 Between: Guntur Kasulu S/o Butchayya died and nine others ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Mandalapu Eswara Rao and four others .....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred being aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 19.3.2008 passed in CMA No. 1 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, who filed a suit O.S.No. 142 of 2006 for mandatory injunction. They also filed an application I.A.No. 304 of 2006 in O.S.No. 142 of 2006, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 94 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the peaceful possession, use, occupation and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. That application I.A No. 304 of 2006 was allowed by granting temporary injunction as prayed for. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents 4 and 5 in I.A No. 304 of 2006 in O.S.No. 142 of 2006 preferred an appeal CMA No. 1 of 2007 under Order 43 Rule 1 ( R ) of CPC. The appellate Court after considering the entire material made available on record observed as under: “I am of the view that mere filing of the documents by any party automatically cannot be treated that they showed prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of one party, especially when there is discussion of the documents filed by the respondents who showed better case. The observation made by the trial judge in para 25 of the orders that the “Unregistered Possessory Sale Letter” appears to be genuine and Ex. A2 receipt conclusively establishes” is not correct, when the matter is still pending adjudication during the course of the regular trial.” The appellate Court allowed the CMA by setting aside the orders passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka in I.A No. 304 of 2006 in O.S.No. 142 of 2006 dated 16.10.2006. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents-Plaintiffs in C.M.A preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that when once the trial court having granted the injunction on being satisfied with regard to the prima facie case and balance of convenience and established the proof by virtue of the agreement of sale and Exs. A3-photogrpahs and A2-receipt clearly establish the delivery of possession in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs and also receipt of consideration from them, the appellate court failed to appreciate the same. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that the agreement of sale does not by itself confer any legally enforceable right and the appellate court having found that the respondents having purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 31.10.2001 whereas Ex. A2 dated 6.9.1992. Now the enquiry is narrow and limited. Only with regard to satisfying the ingredients of grant of injunction as regards the prima facie case and balance of convenience having been satisfied by proving the necessary evidence in favour of the petitioner therefore, the trial court granted and the same was reversed. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the material made available on record. In view of the rival contention, I have called for original of the agreement of sale deed dated 31.10.2001 and there is a recital to that effect. On perusal of the same, it is seen that in the document there was a recital to that effect the possession was delivered. Therefore, the appellate court observed that the trial court erred in observing that the documents filed by the petitioners showed prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and the alleged GPA unregistered possessory sale agreement, receipt appear to be of the same i.e. 6.9.1993 drawing suspicion and that the appellants-respondents in IA showed a better case and respondent-plaintiff did not approach court with clean hands and accordingly allowed the appeal correctly by setting the orders passed in I.A.No. 304/2006 in O.S.No. 142/2006 dated 16.10.2006. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein. Till such time, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Dt. 21.08.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies