THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4507 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order, dated 06-09-2011 in I.A.No.312 of 2011 in O.S.No.286 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, Kurnool District, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order XIV Rules 1 to 5 r/w Section 151 CPC to recast and frame additional issues by rectifying the issues already framed, was dismissed. 2. The above application was filed by the petitioner herein (2nd defendant) to recast and frame the following issues: 1.Whether the regular civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit according to law, when the same subject matter is seized by the Spl. Officer on the file of primary tribunal at Dhone under AP (AA) Tenancy Act, 1956 in ATC No.1/2005? 2.Whether the 2nd defendant is cultivating tenant of Chakali Pedda Venkatamma who is vendor of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs? 3.Whether the 2nd defendant enjoyed the plaint schedule property in the capacity of tenant earlier to the plaintiffs and evicted from the tenancy lands i.e, suit schedule lands according to legal procedure? 4.Whether the plaintiffs are trespassers over the plaint schedule lands? 5. Whether the plaintiff No.1 is entitled for getting D-Form patta to the extent of Ac.0.81 cents of Govt. AW land in Sy.No.417 according to law and procedure and whether the D-Form patta issued to the plaintiff No.1 is valid or not? 6. Whether the sale deed executed by Chakali Pedda Venkatamma vendor of plaintiff No.1 is against the provisions of AP (AA) Tenancy Act, 1956 or not? 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 9. To what relief? The trial Court dismissed the above application on the ground that the petitioner failed to furnish the reasonable and acceptable grounds to recast the additional issues as prayed for. In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury if injunction is not granted. The case of the petitioner herein is that he is the cultivating tenant of Chakali Pedda Venkatamma, who is the vendor of the plaintiffs. Whether the petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of the land or not is not the matter to be decided in a suit for permanent injunction. The remedy of the petitioner is to file necessary application before competent forum. Therefore, the proposed issues as raised by the petitioner herein cannot be adjudicated in a suit for injunction and that is the reason why, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 3. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 26-12-2011 Hsd