IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3339 of 2009 Between: Burri Sathamma & 2 others .... Petitioners And: Puttala Balreddy & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3339 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.06.2009 in CMA No.8 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein was allowed setting aside the order dated 24.09.2008 in IA No.73 of 2007 in OS No.18 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Banswada where under the said application filed by the petitioners herein-plaintiffs under order 39 Rule 1 CPC for grant of temporary injunction was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, they are the absolute owners of the suit land of total Ac.6.36 guntas situated at Komalancha village of Nizamsagar Mandal, having acquired the same by way of registered gift deeds Ex.P.1 to P.3 and that they have been in possession and enjoyment and cultivating the suit land and they were issued pattedar passbooks Exs.P.4 to P.6 and also Exs.P.14 to 34 pahanies from 1992-2005. It is alleged that as the defendants were trying to interfere with their possession, they filed suit for injunction. Along with the said suit, they filed IA No.73 of 2007 for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The respondents/defendants filed counter, opposing the said application and contending that one Burri Agamreddy had two wives i.e., first wife Buchamma, who had three daughters i.e., Vittavva, Sathevva and Bhumavva and second wife Pochamma, who died issueless and that the deceased Sathevva, one of the daughters of Agamreddy, had three sons i.e., Vittal Reddy, Balreddy-first defendant and Mohan Reddy-2nd defendant and that they are in possession of the suit property by way of succession and his possession is also entered in the revenue records from 1990 to 2007. The respondents further contended that after the death of Pochamma, the original owner, the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the petitioners-plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land. 4. During enquiry, Exs.P.1 to P.41 were marked on behalf of the petitioners and Exs.R.1 to R.7 were marked on behalf of the respondents. After considering the material on record, the trial court holding that the plaintiffs have made out prima-facie case of possession and enjoyment of the suit property, granted temporary injunction. On appeal by the defendants, the learned Senior Civil Judge set aside the order of injunction holding that the plaintiffs have intentionally suppressed the material facts about the source of title of Pochamma and the details of the alleged adoption by Pochamma. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred the present revision. 5. The suit is one for permanent injunction. Both parties are claiming to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land in their own right through different sources of title. Several questions pertaining to the alleged title of Pochamma and as to who are her successors are raised, which are matters to be considered on evidence. As of now, the appellate court set aside the injunction order granted by the trial court and there is no order of injunction in force. The suit is of the year 2007. The various documents filed by both sides in support of their contentions do fall for consideration by the trial court in a detailed manner during the course of trial. Further, while admitting the revision petition, no interim order was granted by this court. It is therefore considered neither just nor appropriate to go into the merits of the case at this stage about five years after filing of the suit in the present interlocutory proceedings as to whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. Instead, it is considered just and proper to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit itself on merits at an early date. 6. In the circumstances, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 23.01.2012 bss