HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1900 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs. They filed O.S.No. 182 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon seeking permanent injunction against respondents 1 to 4 and others. They filed I.A.No. 459 of 2007 seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit schedule property of an extent of Ac.8.29 gts. in Sy.No.83 of Pochampally Village, and an extent of Ac.4.06 gts. in Sy.No.37 of Regula Village. The Trial Court, by its order dated 22.10.2007, granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 1 to 5 filed CMA.No.7 of 2007 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon and the Learned Judge, by his order dated 04.04.2008, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Trial Court, dated 22.10.2007, and vacated the temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of revision. The first appellate Court acknowledged that the pahani patrikas, and other revenue records, relied on by them disclosed their ownership and possession over items Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties; while the said documents did give rise to the presumption of the petitioners being in possession such a presumption was rebuttable; and the petitioners herein had admitted in their written statement in Ex.B.13 that they were in possession of Ac.4.29 gts in relation to item No.1 and Ac.2.30 gts. in relation to item No.2. On the basis of this admission, the first appellate Court vacated the order of temporary injunction passed by the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon in I.A.No.459 of 2007 in O.S.No.182 of 2007. Sri Ch. Purnachandra Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the question, as to the extent on which reliance could be placed on the pahani patrikas, the revenue records or the admissions in the written statement, was required to be examined only at the time of final adjudication of the suit; the Court was required to examine whether the respondents-plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of the injunction sought for by them; and, since the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon had accepted that the revenue records, such as pahani patrikas, pattadar pass books and the report of the advocate commissioner in the earlier suit i.e. O.S.No.184 of 2004, showed that the petitioners were in possession of Ac.8.29 gts. in Sy.No.83 situated at Pochampally Village and an extent of Ac.4.06 gts. in Sy.No.37 of Regula Village, the order of the appellate Court necessitates being set aside in revision. The Learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon has recorded a finding that the petitioners herein had admitted, in their written statement, that they were in possession of Ac.4.29 gts. in relation to item No.1 and Ac.2.30 gts. in relation to item No.2. This finding is based on the admission made by the petitioners-plaintiffs and, as such, the order of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon does not suffer from a patent illegality necessitating interference in Revision proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Ends of justice would be met if the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon is directed to dispose of the Suit early without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon in CMA.No.7 of 2007 or by this Court in the present revision petition. Subject to the above observations, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon vacating the order of temporary injunction. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:01-07-2010 usd