HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4692 of 2007 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, in C.M.A.No.2 of 2005 on 25.06.2007 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, in I.A.No.100 of 2004 in O.S.No.57 of 2004 on 27.11.2004, and consequently, negativing the request of the plaintiff for grant of interim injunction. The suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of a cart track in Sy.No.99 of Dharmojigudem village claiming the same to be in existence for a long time as a means of ingress and egress for the land of the plaintiff, which is said to be obliterated by the defendants. Defendants 1 to 3 denied the claim of the plaintiff and contended that the right of way of the plaintiff is through the land of defendants 3 and 4 and the suit was filed in collusion with the 4th defendant to make a false claim against defendants 1 to 3. The 4th defendant claimed that he was un-concerned with the cart track claimed in the suit. Pending the suit, an interim injunction was sought for by the plaintiff in I.A.No.100 of 2004, and during enquiry into the said petition, the trial Court marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and R.1 to R.6. It rendered the order dated 27.11.2004 opining that Ex.P.4-photograph filed by the plaintiff showed a pathway from the National Highway No.9, and consequently, held that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of temporary injunction. In appeal, the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, in his order dated 25.06.2007 opined that a prima facie case could not have been presumed by the trial Court merely on the basis of traces of the cart track seen in some photographs and when the plaintiff did not file the affidavits of any neighbouring cultivators or predecessors, he cannot succeed on the ground of weakness in the version of the defendants, and holding that the plaintiff also failed to establish the aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, vacated the interim injunction granted by the trial Court and set aside the order passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed this revision questioning the appreciation of material on record by the appellate Court. Pending the civil revision petition, while admitting the same, status-quo as on that day was ordered to be maintained on 26.10.2007. Heard Sri P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Smt. K. Rajitha, learned counsel for the respondents. The point for consideration is as to the manner in which the rights and interests of both parties shall be protected pending the suit. The order of the trial Court shows that it has preferred to find corroboration to the claims of the plaintiff from the physical features disclosed by Ex.P.4 photographs. It is seen from the record that Ex.R.2-photographs were filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 to indicate the physical features against the probability of existence of the cart track, while Exs.P.1 to P.3, Exs.R.1 and R.3 to R.6 marked before the trial Court relate to the possession of adjacent neighbouring lands by the parties which is not in dispute. Except the photographs, there is no other material for the plaintiff to corroborate his claims and what remains for consideration of the Court were only the statements of the parties against each other. The appellate Court considered the fact that the field measurement book showing the existence of the cart track was not before the Court and that the existence of an alternative way for the land of the plaintiff alleged by defendants 1 to 3 was not discredited by the material on record. The appellate Court also found that if a cart track is allowed to be used in the middle of an agricultural land, the entire land may become useless, and the property of the plaintiff was also noted to be a grazing field not fit for raising any crops. The conclusions of the appellate Court in this regard that the plaintiff failed to prove the essential ingredients for grant of interim injunction cannot, therefore, be found fault with. However, the rights of the parties would ultimately be decided on the basis of merits and probabilities arising out of the evidence adduced by the parties during trial. The appellate Court noted that there were some traces of the cart track from the grazing field of the plaintiff and as an order of status-quo is in force almost for about three years during pendency of the civil revision petition and the suit is of the year 2004, the trial Court can be directed to expedite the trial in the matter and the order of status-quo can be continued in the meanwhile which causes no further prejudice to the rights and interests of both parties. In view of the above, the trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S.No.57 of 2004 on merits in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity to both parties as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and till disposal of the suit on merits, the order of status-quo granted by this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No.6197 of 2007 on 26.10.2007 shall continue to be in force. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 15.07.2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No.4692 of 2007 (Ordered) Date:15.07.2010 CBS