THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.468 of 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the appeal in C.M.A. No. 16 of 2007, filed by the respondent herein against the order dated 06.07.2007, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, in I.A. No. 376 of 2006 in O.S. No. 121 of 2006, making the temporary injunction granted on 30.11.2006 in favour of the petitioner herein, absolute. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed the suit O.S. No. 121 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, against the respondent herein, for perpetual injunction, and pending the suit, she filed I.A. No. 376 of 2006, for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the respondent from interfering with her possession of the suit schedule property. The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner and has taken a stand that he purchased the suit schedule property from the petitioner on 27.05.1995. The trial Court, having considered the rival contentions of the parties and the documents filed by them, held that the plaintiff has got prima facie case and balance of convenience in her favour and is entitled for temporary injunction as prayed for, and accordingly made the temporary injunction already granted in her favour on 30.11.2006 absolute till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed C.M.A. No. 16 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, and the learned Senior Civil Judge, upon consideration of the matter, allowed the appeal, by order dated 23.11.2007, setting aside the orders passed by the learned trial Judge and dismissing the I.A. No. 376 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the orders of the Courts below and other material available on record. As can be seen from the orders of the Courts below, the plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, while the respondent claims to have purchased the suit schedule property from the plaintiff on 27.05.1995. The respondent to show that he is in possession of the suit schedule property, filed Ex. R2, certified copy of pahani of the year 2006-07, whereas the petitioner to show that she is in possession of the suit schedule property, filed certified copies of pahanis under Exs.P2 and P3, which are of the years 2005-06 and 2001-02. Thus, it is clear that the pahani produced by the respondent under Ex. R2 is the latest one evidencing his possession. Though Ex.R2 is said to have been issued by the Village Assistant Officer and not the Mandal Revenue Officer, the fact remains, as observed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, the plaintiff did not produce any latest pahani for the year 2006-07 to show that she is in possession. In the absence of any latest pahani produced by the petitioner, evidencing her possession, the appellate Court felt that the recitals of Ex.R2 cannot be disputed. This apart, the appellate Court further found that the respondent also filed certified copy of registered sale deed under Ex.R1 to show that he, representing M/s. Vijay Stone Quarry Private Limited as its Managing Director, purchased the suit schedule property from the plaintiff and filed Ex.R3 – letter of mortgage issued by Syndicate Bank, to show that he has mortgaged the suit schedule property with Syndicate Bank for obtaining loan. Though the trial Court observed that the respondent purchased the suit schedule property in the capacity of Managing Director, but not in his individual capacity and whereas the suit is filed against the respondent in his individual capacity, the fact remains, merely because the property was purchased in the name of the company, the appellate Court felt that it cannot be said that the respondent has no interest in the same. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Senior Civil Judge has viewed the matter from right perspective and held that there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and thus set aside the order passed by the trial Court, by the order under revision, and no interference is warranted therewith in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without costs. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 24th December, 2010 IBL