THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2833 of 2010 ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order dated 22.6.2010 in E.A. No.342 of 2009 in E.A. No.647 of 2008 in E.P. No.21 of 2008 in R.C.C. No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada, whereunder and whereby a common enquiry was ordered to be conducted in the present application filed by the petitioner/third party for restoration/restitution of possession of the schedule property in his favour and in E.A. No.647 of 2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, as per the Amin’s report dated 1.11.2008, the petitioner was in possession of the schedule property by 1.11.2008, and that he was wrongfully evicted on 15.6.2009 by the decree holder through process of court with the help of local police, and therefore, his possession has to be restored in the first instance. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the impugned order needs no interference in view of the fact that right, title and possession of the petitioner is yet to be established in the claim petition. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was illegally evicted through process of court on 15.6.2009, and that his claim application was dismissed on technical grounds on 8.6.2009 and immediately thereafter he was evicted, and hence, he prays to restore his possession. That aspect of the case has not been decided by the trial Court. In view of the fact that, prima facie, the petitioner is shown to be in possession of the schedule property by 15.6.2009 and he was allegedly dispossessed from the schedule property, the trial Court ought to have taken up the application No.342 of 2009 filed by him in the first instance, instead of taking this petition along with the claim petition for adjudication. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is set aside the matter is remanded to the trial Court to pass appropriate order in E.A. No.342 of 2009 after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. However, it is made clear that observation, if any, made in this order shall not be construed as the finding of this Court, by the trial Court, and uninfluenced by any observation in this order, the trial Court shall pass appropriate order in the application filed by the petitioner herein, in accordance with law. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 24.11.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2833 of 2010 24.11.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2833 of 2010 24.11.2010 Between: Tonneti Venkata Raja Sudhakar …Petitioner And Lakkaraju Janardhana Rao …Respondent