THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4380 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 05.08.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.39 of 2010 on the file of the II- Additional District Judge, Warangal, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/defendant against the order dated 30.04.2010 passed in I.A.No.81 of 2010 in O.S.No.16 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, whereby interim injunction was granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff restraining the petitioner/defendant and her family members from interfering in any way in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over A and B schedule properties till disposal of the suit. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the suit being O.S.No.16 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, against the defendant, for declaration of title and consequential injunction, and also filed I.A.No.81 of 2010, for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the petition A and B schedule properties. After notice and hearing both the parties, the trial Court, by its order dated 30.04.2010 in I.A.No.81 of 2010, was pleased to grant interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed C.M.A.No.39 of 2010 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Warangal, who, after detailed consideration of the matter, dismissed the appeal by his order dated 05.08.2010 confirming the order passed in the said I.A.No.81 of 2010. Against the order dated 05.08.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.39 of 2010, the present revision is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress this Court stating that the alleged gift deed executed by Smt. Aruna is not tenable in the eye of law for the reason that she was neither the owner nor possessor of the plaint schedule properties. Learned counsel further submitted that the Court below erred in not relying on Exs.B1 to B12, which established the possession of the petitioner for the last more than 30 years, and it erred in relying on revenue records marked as Exs.A1 to A5, which are manipulated. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court has taken every aspect into consideration in granting the interim injunction in favour of the respondent and the same was rightly upheld by the appellate Court. The suit being O.S.No.16 of 2010 is filed for declaration and consequential injunction and I.A.No.81 of 2010 is filed for temporary injunction. The main ingredients for grant of injunction are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. When these requirements are satisfied, the Courts below can definitely grant injunction. Whether Exs.A1 to A5 are true or not and whether the Courts below erred in not relying on Exs.B1 to B12 are purely questions which have to be dealt with during the course of trial in the said suit. As stated supra, it is only on the prima facie satisfaction of the Court that the rejection of injunction would cause irreparable loss etc., the temporary injunction will be granted and, ultimately, the Court below will go into every aspect raised by the defendant at the time of deciding the suit. Having perused the orders impugned in this revision, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the Courts below have applied the required yardstick in granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff and I see no error in the orders impugned in this revision. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. However, if any constructions are made by the respondent/plaintiff in the guise of temporary injunction granted in his favour, such constructions are at his peril and the same are subject to the result of the suit. Further, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 29.01.2011 v v