THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.825 of 2011 ORDER: The plaintiffs in O.S.No.785 of 2008 filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They filed I.A.No.1800 of 2008 seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. In the trial Court, the petitioners have adduced documentary evidence from Exs.P.1 to P.10 and the respondents from Exs.R.1 to R.40. Having perused the evidence on record, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have not prima facie established their possession of the petition schedule property for grant of injunction and thereby, dismissed the I.A. by its order, dated 12.05.2009. As against the same, they filed C.M.A.No.42 of 2009, in which, the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the matter, dismissed the same by order, dated 24.11.2010. Aggrieved by the same, they filed this Civil Revision Petition. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is the case of the petitioners that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and in spite of their filing cogent evidence, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court has rejected their claim. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as much as there is a boundary dispute with regard to identity of survey numbers, the lower appellate Court has appointed the Commissioner for demarcation and even before receipt of his report, the lower appellate Court disposed of the matter by confirming order, dated 12.05.2009, passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1800 of 2008. When the matter is taken up, Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced before this Court a copy of order, dated 10.10.2010, passed by the lower appellate Court in I.A.No.965 of 2009 in C.M.A.No.42 of 2009, and submitted that the warrant was returned by the Commissioner. While it is true that by the orders passed in I.A.No.965 of 2009, the Commissioner was appointed for demarcation of the suit schedule property, when the warrant was returned by the Commissioner, the said I.A. itself was closed by order, dated 10.10.2010. In view of closure of I.A.No.965 of 2009, it cannot be said that the report of the Commissioner was awaited. In any event, in view of concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be a direction to the trial Court to expedite the hearing of the matter and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th OCTOBER, 2011. kvni