THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2250 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.692 of 2006, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, for the relief of perpetual injunction, to restrain the respondents, and any one, claiming through them, from causing obstruction in the A, B, C and D passage of the plaint plan, for his ingress and egress to reach the Panchayat Street, on the northern side of his house. He has also filed I.A.No.2217 of 2006, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order, dated 12.12.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed C.M.A.No.9 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. The appeal was allowed, on 20.04.2009. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.Rajan, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner does not claim ownership rights, over the suit schedule property, or lane. From the contents of the plaint, it is evident that he claimed easementary rights. Whatever may be the parameters for grant of temporary injunction, in the suits of different categories, wherever the relief of mandatory injunction, or easementary rights is claimed, such relief cannot be granted. The declaration, be it, as regards mandatory injunction, or easementary rights, must precede the conferment of such rights. Therefore, the order of temporary injunction, granted by the trial Court was contrary to the very basic tenets of law. The lower Appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit itself, within a period of three months. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:15.09.2009. GJ