THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.676 of 2010 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2-defendant. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 22.1.2010, in C.M.A.No.56 of 2008, passed by the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, allowing the appeal filed by the defendants. 3. I have perused the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court. 4. The only question raised in this civil revision petition is that the lower appellate Court passed an order contrary to the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.5543 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008. 5. In this regard, it is to be seen that C.R.P.No.5543 of 2008 was filed by the 2nd respondent-defendant challenging the order passed by the trial Court in allowing the application I.A.No.957 of 2008 in O.S.No.1532 of 2008 making the ad-interim injunction into that of temporary injunction. When the said revision petition was filed by the 2nd respondent-defendant, this Court made certain observations regarding jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the revision petition. This Court was of the view that the impugned order therein was an appealable one and the revision petition does not lie. However, in case of absolute necessity, this Court would always interfere by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The observations made in the above revision petition were treated as confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Taking cue from the observations made by this Court, the 2nd respondent herein, who was the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.5543 of 2008, filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellant Court, having gone into the merits of the case, found certain infirmities in the order passed by the trial Court and accordingly passed the impugned order, dated 22.1.2010, setting aside the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence the present civil revision petition. 7. I am of the view that this Court cannot go into the merits of the case, at the threshold, and pass an order either way. Therefore, I am not inclined to enter into those controversies touching upon the merits of the case. 8. For the foregoing, there are no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 01.04.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.676 of 2010 01.04.2010 (Msr)