THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5538 & 5539 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1 CRP No.5538 of 2010 is preferred against the order dated 03.11.2010 passed in CMA No.25 of 2010 on the file of the court of the IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Warangal whereby the learned Additional District Judge wile confirming the order dated 26.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.1182 of 2004 in O.S.No.553 of 2004 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Warangal and dismissed the said CMA. 2 Brief facts are that Respondents / Plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.553 of 2004 for grant of perpetual injunction. In the said suit they also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC for grant of temporary injunction against the revision petitioner. After service of notice the petitioner has put in his appearance and the trial court having heard both the counsel at length granted an order of temporary injunction by its order dated 26.03.2010. The same was questioned by the petitioners by filing CMA No.25 of 2010. While the said CMA is pending before the lower appellate curt, as certain documents were not produced before the trial court the revision petitioner filed an application i.e. I.A.No.698 of 2010 in CMA No.25 of 2010 to receive two sets of documents as additional evidence. The lower appellate court having considered the submissions, refused to vacate the said interim order of injunction granted in favour of the respondents by the trial court and accordingly dismissed the said appeal. Similarly the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to receive certain documents as additional evidence was also dismissed by order dated 03.11.2010. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed CRP No.5539 of 2010. In view of the commonness these revisions are disposed of by this common order. 3 It is mainly contended by Sri G. Venkateswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there was no injunction during the pendency of the suit. It is only in the month of March 2010 an order of injunction was granted. It is his further submission that the land in question was leased out in favour of the petitioner and in the light of the said lease the Mines Department also granted mining permits etc. According to him there is absolutely no balance of convenience in favour of the respondents and the courts below have failed to take the said aspect into consideration. 4 Per contra Mr. Bhanu Prasad the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the so called owners who alleged to have granted the lease of the land in question have given affidavits clearly stating that they never leased out their lands in favour of the petitioner. In fact the said affidavits, according to him, are flied along with Ex.P.29. It is his further contention that when once the so called lessors have given affidavits to the effect that they did not lease out the lands in favour of the petitioner it is for the petitioner to prove the source from which he got the said letters. 5 In the light of the above submissions this court looked into the record and the orders impugned in these two revisions. As seen from Ex.P.1 to P.4 the respondents / plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit property by their vendors and executor. Of course, Ex.P.1 to P.4 are unregistered deeds of conveyance and gift deed, but they were impounded by R.D.O. Warangal under the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the required stamp duty and penalty were also collected by the revenue authorities from them. Exs.P.5 and P.6 would go to show that the respondents / Plaintiffs have obtained the registered sale deeds from one G.M. Omar Khan in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence Exs.P.1 to P.6 would amply show the prima facie title and possession of the respondents / Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. That itself is sufficient for granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs because for grant of an order of temporary injunction in a petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. one has to clinchingly establish the prima facie possession over the suit schedule property. Further, as seen from the record, Exs.P.7 to P.17 support the contention of the respondents / plaintiffs that their vendors as well as donor were in occupation of the suit schedule property prior to Exs.P.1 to P.6. 6 The affidavits given by the vendors of the respondents / Plaintiffs of Exs.P.1 to P.4 would go to show that they never executed any lease deed in favour of the revision petitioner for the purpose of obtaining mining lease to excavate the literate mineral and that the revision petitioner has no right over the suit schedule property. The adangals filed into court would also go to show that the respondents / Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for the years 2006 to 2008. When there is ample evidence available on record, in my considered view, the courts below are perfectly justified in granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the respondents / Plaintiffs. On the other hand the revision petitioner has not filed any documentary proof establishing the source of his acquiring right or title, except filing Exs.R.1 to R.4, which are not sufficient to confer any right on the revision petitioner for the purpose of mining. Both the courts below have gone into all these aspects in detail and have concurrently held that the respondents / plaintiffs are entitled for grant of temporary injunction. In view of the foregoing discussion, I see no merits in CRP No.5538 of 2010. 7. Coming to the other revision i.e. with regard to receiving of certain documents as additional evidence, the court below has rightly held that the petitioner has not explained as to why he could not file the certificates issued by the Mines Department in token of payment of royalty to the department for excavating minerals from the land in Sy.No.60/2 before the trial court and hence the petitioner failed to prove the required ingredients under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. Hence I see no merits in this revision also. 8. Accordingly, these two revisions are dismissed. No order as to costs. However, having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2004, the trial court is hereby directed to decide the suit at the earliest, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. --------------- 16.12.2010 Kvsn