THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 1581 of 2011 Order: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.01.2011 passed in CMA No.81 of 2010 by the Principal District Judge, Warangal, confirming the order dated 26.07.2010 passed in I.A. No.389 of 2010 in O.S. No.363 of 2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Heard both the counsel. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the main suit. The respondent herein filed the suit for perpetual injunction and along with the suit he also filed I.A. No. 389 of 2010 for grant of interim injunction contending that his father had purchased the suit schedule land from one K. Venkata Narsaiah during the year 1995 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- and obtained a simple sale deed and since then his father was cultivating the land and his name was entered in the revenue records during the year 2007-08. It is also his case that during the year 2009 when he fell sick the suit land was given to the defendant on lease for only one year but after one year the defendant again started ploughing the land and therefore he filed the suit for injunction. On behalf of the plaintiff Ex.P1 adangal pahani for the year 2007-08 was marked. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendant. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, on consideration of the entire material on record, allowed the said I.A. No.389 of 2010 and granted interim injunction order. The same was challenged by the defendant in CMA No.81 of 2010. The learned District Judge, by an order dated 06.01.2011, confirmed the orders passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP has been preferred by the defendant. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant is that the Courts below failed to see that the plaintiff failed to file any documents to prove his title and based on a simple sale deed which is inadmissible in evidence, granted interim injunction. It is also his submission that except filing pahanies, no other documents were filed and admittedly the suit land was given on lease for the year 2008-09. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that admittedly the plaintiff filed Ex.P1 and no documents have been filed by the defendant and moreover the plaintiff has given the land on lease to the defendant for only one year and taking advantage of the same the defendant tried to plough the land. Since both the Courts below, on appreciation of entire material on record, have concurrently held that the plaintiff is in possession of the land, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. However, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the main suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Till the disposal of the main suit, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. With the above observation, the CRP is disposed of at the admission stage itself. No costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 17.06.2011 Nsr