THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3276 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.254 of 2008 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala against the petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. I.A.No.1165 of 2008 was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The application was opposed by the petitioners. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 20.11.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed C.M.A.No.17 of 2008 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal through order, dated 01.07.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. The case of the respondent was that he purchased the property through a sale deed, dated 16.12.1989, and that ever since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners, on the other hand, pleaded that they purchased the property way back in the year 1967 and certified copy of the said sale deed was also filed as a document. They have also filed the pattadar pass book as Ex.R3. In the C.M.A., the respondents filed Ex.P4, a letter, dated 06.03.2010, said to have been issued by the Tahsildar to the effect that his Office has not issued the pattadar pass book in respect of the land in Survey No.540/17, admeasuring Acs.0.42 cents. Before this Court, the petitioners strongly canvass that Ex.P4 is a bit uncertain and misleading and the lower appellate Court did not take the real purport into account. In determining the question as to who among the parties in a suit for injunction is in possession of the property, the documents that are issued by the Revenue Department assume significance. The petitioners strongly relied upon Ex.R3 to prove the possession over the suit schedule property. That, however, was sought to be belied by placing reliance upon Ex.P4. It is true that the proceedings are at the interlocutory stage and the occasion for the Court to record the oral evidence of the parties did not arise. All the same, the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to rebut Ex.P4. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court, leaving it open to the petitioners to adduce such evidence as they intend to. The lower appellate Court shall take the same into account and if necessary, it shall record oral evidence also, since the genuinity of several documents is involved. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today as regards the property in question shall be maintained. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.09.2011 kdl