sawTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.374 OF 2020 15-07-2010 Between: G.Pedda Kondaiah and others ..Petitioners Vs. G.Lingaiah …Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.374 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER The revision petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.325 of 2008, filed by the respondent seeking a permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property claiming the title and possession of an extent of Ac.1.78 cents in Sy.No.780/1 of Darsi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. The revision petitioners contested the suit and denied the title of the plaintiff and his possession as on the date of the suit. The interlocutory application I.A.No.845 of 2008 filed for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial court by the order dated 09-04- 2009 on a finding that the plaintiff failed to establish possession of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred CMA 4 of 2009. By the order dated 26-10-2009, impugned herein, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi directed both parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the petition. It requires to be noticed that the learned lower appellate court failed to reverse the findings of the trial court in I.A.No.845 of 2008 that the plaintiff failed to establish possession of the suit schedule property. It also failed to address itself to the singular appellate question as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of the suit. Instead the lower appellate court proceeded on a detailed analysis as to the competing claims of the plaintiff and defendants and recorded that the plaintiff’s claim of title to the suit schedule property is also in doubt and ought to be determined at the trial of the suit. As the lower appellate court failed to address itself to the only relevant appellate question namely, whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property, the order under revision cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. CMA 4 of 2009 is remanded to the court of Senior Civil Judge, Darsi for a fresh consideration and for determining the claim of the respondent that he was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and was therefore entitled to temporary injunction. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The Court below shall expeditiously consider and dispose of CMA 4 of 2009, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 15th JULY 2010 TSNR