THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.3544/2009 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and Sri Ch.Dhananjaya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- defendants. This revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-plaintiff is directed against the orders of the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram dt. 13-4- 2009 passed in CMA No.24/2007, whereunder the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants against the order of grant of injunction dt. 19- 6-2007 passed in IA No.763/2006 in OS No.159/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram was allowed and remitted the matter to the trial court for disposal afresh The petitioner-plaintiff instituted the above suit for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed IA No.763/2009 seeking temporary injunction contending that an extent of Ac.4-56 cents wet land situated in Challapalli has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of her since 1997. Prior to that, her husband G.Satyanarayana, has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Her husband, G. Satyanarayana, got the plaint schedule property from his father G. Venkayya, who purchased the same under various sale deeds. The respondents-defendants have no manner of right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property and are trying to encroach into the plaint schedule property and they should be restrained from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The respondents-defendants filed a counter denying the allegations mentioned in the affidavit and denying the title of the petitioner-plaintiff to the suit schedule property. They further stated that they are close relatives of G.Satyanarayana, husband of the petitioner-plaintiff and at the time when he purchased the property, he was an Excise Superintendent and on the advise of the first respondent-first defendant, Satyanarayana purchased the property in the name of his father Venkayya and since 1965 to 1996 the first respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the property as a tenant and the first respondent took the land on lease in the year 1996 and paid rents regularly. The trail court after considering Exs.P-1 to P-8 filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff and Exs.R-1 to R-9 filed on behalf of the respondents-defendants concluded that the documents which are filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, namely, title deeds, ryotwari passbook, title deed book issued by the revenue authorities and tax receipts show that the petitioner-plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property; the respondents-defendants are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the petitioner-plaintiff has established the ingredients for grant of temporary injunction as required under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC and while holding so granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the order of injunction, the respondents- defendants filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. Before the lower appellate court, the respondents-defendants filed IA Nos.1315/2008 and 1345/2008 to receive additional evidence, namely, registered deeds, copies of registered deeds, pattadar pass book in the name of Giddi Satyanarayana and tax receipts. At the time of arguments, the lower appellate court expressed its opinion that in view of filing the documents by the respondents-defendants, the matter will have to be remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal and at that time the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff wanted to file some more documents. Since no such application was filed by the petitioner- plaintiff to receive additional evidence, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the trial court and remitted the matter to the trial court to dispose of the matter afresh with a direction to receive the additional documents, the parties may produce, if any, and also receive all the documents including such documents sought to be received in the appeal. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernible in the order passed by the lower appellate court remitting the matter to the trial court warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. Since there is an injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff from 19-6-2007, the date on which injunction petition was allowed till 13-4-2009, the date on which appeal has been disposed of, both parties are directed to maintain status quo as on the date of disposal of the appeal ie., 13- 4-2009 till IA No.763/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram is disposed of by the trial court. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.18-9-2009 kmr