HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5587 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 25-09-2009 in C.M.A.No.8 of 2009, on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said appeal filed by the revision petitioners herein was dismissed, confirming the order dated 30-03-2009 in I.A.No.1716 of 2008 in O.S.No.527 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, and directing the trial court to dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six months. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The revision petitioners herein filed the suit O.S.No.527 of 2008 for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, they filed I.A.No.1716 of 2008 for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule lands. According to the petitioners, the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule lands belonged to the first plaintiff, she having got the same from her husband and the second plaintiff is the foster son of the first plaintiff and it is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants without right, title or possession are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands by the plaintiffs and proclaiming to trespass into the suit lands and destroy the standing crop. The respondents/defendants filed a counter opposing the said petition. 4. During enquiry, Exs.A-1 to A-16 were marked on behalf of the petitioners and Exs.B-1 to B-13 were marked on behalf of the respondents/defendants. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the ingredients of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC are not established for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court further observed that unless a full-fledged trial is commenced, it would not be possible for the Court to decide the rights of the parties and as to who was in legal possession as on the date of the suit. It is also observed by the trial Court that the contentions on either side reveal that some of the properties were not in the hands of the petitioners or the defendants. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.8 of 2009. The learned District Judge, on re-appraisal of the evidence on record agreed with the trial Court that unless a full-fledged trial is held, it would not be possible to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties regarding their ownership and possession. The learned District Judge while confirming the order of the trial Court directed the trial court to take up the trial of the main suit and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six months. Not satisfied with the same, the plaintiffs filed the present civil revision petition. 6. A perusal of the impugned orders of the Courts below would disclose that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favour for grant of temporary injunction. The said orders were passed by the trial Court on proper consideration of the material available on record and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court on re- appraisal of the evidence available on record. It was further observed by the Courts below that the rival contentions of the parties with respect to the suit lands, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be properly adjudicated upon unless a full-fledged trial is conducted. When the Courts below have, on due appreciation of the material available on record, recorded a finding that there are no valid or justifiable grounds for grant of temporary injunction and have exercised their discretion in a judicious manner and refused to grant the discretionary relief, it is held that there are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the said concurrent findings recorded by the Courts in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as the impugned orders are not shown to suffer from any illegality or irregularity. In view of the rival contentions of the partiers, it is considered that the learned District Judge has rightly directed expeditious disposal of the suit itself. 7. In the circumstances, it is directed that the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 14th December, 2009 Lrkm. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5587 OF 2009 Between:- Bandaru Simhachalam and another …Petitioners A n d Bandaru Gairamma and others …Respondents