THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.3763 & 3850 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are between the same parties and arise out of the orders passed in the interlocutory applications, filed in the same suit. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner filed O.S.No.12 of 2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, for the relief of perpetual injunction, to restrain the respondents from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property and for damages of Rs.1,10,000/-, towards the costs of the material, said to have been taken away by the respondents from the suit property. The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.26 of 2005, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for the relief of temporary injunction. The petitioner pleaded that, he is in possession and enjoyment of a site of 120 X 22 feet in Bhoktapur locality of Adilabad, for the past several years, and he constructed a house in that site. According to him, in between the suit schedule property and the National Highway No.7, there is a site owned by the respondents, and on ground that they lost some area in the widening of the national highway, the respondents are trying to encroach into the suit site. The respondents filed separate counter-affidavits, opposing the plea of the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 are said to be agnates, and that by virtue of assignment in their favour, they are in possession of a site of 120 X 200 feet. They disputed the title as well as the possession of the petitioner over the suit site, and alleged that the father of the petitioner himself was an encroacher. Mention was also made to the demolition of the house constructed by the petitioner, by the Adilabad Municipality, on 01.12.2004. An allegation was made to the effect that it is the petitioner, who is trying to encroach into their land. Even while the enquiry into I.A.No.26 of 2005 was pending, the petitioner filed I.A.No.197 of 2005, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for a temporary mandatory injunction, requiring the respondents to remove the fencing and compound wall, constructed by them, and to restore possession of the property to him. It was alleged that the respondents have resorted to the acts of raising fencing and compound wall, to preempt the grant of relief in I.A.No.26 of 2005. The respondents opposed that application, by pleading that the compound wall and fencing were existing, even by the time the suit was filed. They have also raised an objection, as to the maintainability of such an application. Through separate orders, dated 22.08.2005, the trial Court dismissed, both, the applications. The petitioner filed C.M.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 2005, against the said orders, before the Court of District Judge, Adilabad. Through a common order, dated 15.07.2009, the learned District Judge dismissed C.M.A.No.21 of 2005, filed against the order in I.A.No.197 of 2005, and C.M.A.No.20 of 2005 was partly allowed granting temporary injunction, only to the extent of house, bearing No.4-3-391, and denying the relief as regards the appurtenant area shown in the plaint schedule. Hence, these two revisions. Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and by dismissing the interlocutory applications, the trial Court not only denied the relief to the petitioner, but also had approved the acts of raising compound wall and fencing, during the pendency of the suit. He contends that both the Courts below have devoted their attention mostly to the question of title, whereas the suit is for the relief of injunction simplicitor. He submits that the steps taken by the respondents, while the I.As. were pending, are required to be nutralised. Sri Pratap Nararayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that, though the title is not of primary importance in a suit for perpetual injunction, the petitioner is under obligation to show the semblance of the same. He contends that, except that a house was constructed by the petitioner in an encroached area, he is not in possession of any appurtenant land. He further contends that the very fact that the prayer made by the petitioner in I.A.No.197 of 2005 for restoration of possession, discloses that he is not in possession of the property. In a suit filed for the relief of perpetual injunction, the petitioner filed I.A.No.26 of 2005, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of that I.A., he filed another I.A.No.197 of 2005. The relief claimed, in that I.A., is for temporary mandatory injunction to (a) direct the respondents to remove the compound wall and fencing, and (b) to restore possession of the property, enclosed by the compound wall, to him. On the face of it, such an application was untenable. The relief claimed in that I.A. can be granted, only in a suit for recovery of possession. The dismissal of that I.A., by the trial Court and approval of the same by the lower Appellate Court, in C.M.A.No.21 of 2005, cannot be found fault with. So far as I.A.No.26 of 2005 is concerned, the relief was claimed in respect of the suit schedule property, which comprised of a residential house and appurtenant area. The respondents did not dispute the existence of the house. However, there is dispute, as to the ownership and possession of the petitioner over the appurtenant land. The respondents flatly denied that the petitioner is in possession of any open area. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.197 of 2005, in a way, support the plea of the respondents. The petitioner did not even establish, prima facie, that he is in possession and enjoyment of the appurtenant area. The question as to whether he has any right, claim or possession, over such area, needs to be decided, after the parties adduce evidence. The trial Court was not justified in dismissing I.A.No.26 of 2005, in its entirety. The lower Appellate Court has corrected the error by granting temporary injunction, in respect of the residential house. When there is serious dispute, as to, not only the possession of the petitioner, over the open area, but also as to the exact extent thereof, he cannot expect the relief of temporary injunction. However, the interests of the parties can be protected, by directing that the respondents shall not make any construction over the open area, which is shown in the plaint schedule, and covered by the compound wall constructed by them, without the specific permission and approval by the trial Court. The suit is of the year 2005. The progress thereof was hindered, on account of the pendency of appeals and revisions. For the foregoing reasons, C.R.P.No.3850 of 2009 is dismissed, and C.R.P.No.3763 of 2009 is disposed of, upholding the order passed by the lower Appellate Court in C.M.A.No.20 of 2005, and further directing that the respondents shall not make any construction over the open area shown as part of the suit schedule property without the specific permission and approval by the trial Court. The disposal of the suit shall be expedited by the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:19.08.2009. GJ