HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3860 OF 2010 & 21 of 2011 Dated 15.6.2011 C.R.P.No.3860 OF 2010. Between: Katuri Chandraiah and others. …Petitioners. And: Velpula @ Elpula Pochamma. …Respondent. C.R.P.No.21 OF 2011. Katuri Chandraiah and others. …Petitioners. And: Velpula @ Elpula Pochamma. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3860 OF 2010 & 21 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.3860 of 2010: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 31.5.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.3 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli. Petitioners herein are the defendants and respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. Originally, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2009 before the trial Court seeking permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them, their family members and workmen from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking to grant ad interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. The trial Court having observed that the plaintiff has established prima facie case and balance of convenience is in her favour, allowed the application making the ad-interim injunction granted to the plaintiff absolute. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal before the 1st appellate Court. The learned 1st appellate Court having observed that the trial Court has considered all the facts in proper perception and rightly granted interim injunction, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the defendants before this Court. C.R.P.No.21 of 2011: This C.R.P. is filed by the defendants aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.2009 passed in I.A.No.124 of 2009 in I.A.No.106 of 2009 in O.S.No.51 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani. Petitioners herein are the defendants and respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.124 of 2009 on before the trial Court under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to grant police aid to the plaintiff in implementing the order of ad-interim injunction already granted by the trial Court. The trial Court having observed that since the injunction order is in force, it is the duty of the defendants to honour it and if the defendants interferes with the possession of the plaintiff, concerned police are directed to provide police aid for implementation of the ad-interim injunction order granted earlier by that trial Court in favour of the plaintiff, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the defendants. Since the parties and the issue involved in these two matters are connected, these two C.R.Ps. are disposed of by way of a Common Order. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. On a careful perusal of documents filed by both the parties, it cannot be said that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff and it belongs to the defendants and locality people, as rightly observed by the 1st appellate Court. Apart from that, Exs.P.1 to P.3 property tax challans and Ex.P.4 property tax receipt and Exs.R.1 and R.2 certificates issued by the Ramagundem Municipality, stand in the name of the husband of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that for granting interim injunction, the plaintiff must prove prima facie case and balance of convenience in her favour. As rightly observed by the 1st appellate Court, as per the documents under Exs.P.1 to 3 property tax challans and Ex.P.4 property tax receipt and Exs.R.1 and R.2 certificates which stand in the name of the husband of the plaintiff, the plaintiff proved the prima facie case and balance of convenience is in her favour. Hence, the 1st appellate Court has rightly confirmed the same by allowing the appeal. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned and as such, this C.R.P.No.3860 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed. In so far as the other C.R.P.No.21 of 2011 is concerned, in view of non-implementation of the order of the ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the application seeking to provide police aid for implementation of the same. The trial Court, on consideration of the evidence in a proper perspective made the ad interim injunction absolute and allowed the petition restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. As rightly observed by the trial Court, since the ad interim injunction order passed by the trial Court is in force, it is the duty of the defendants to honour it and if the defendants interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, the concerned police are directed to provide police aid for implementation of the ad- interim junction order granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the order impugned is a well reasoned order and I do not see any reason to interfere with the same and as such, this C.R.P.No.21 of 2011 is also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the C.R.Ps. are dismissed. No costs. _______________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 15.6.2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3860 OF 2010 & 21 of 2011 Dated 15.6.2011