THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A No.63 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The appellant-defendant filed this appeal against the order, dated 8.12.2010 passed in I.A.No.183 of 2010 in O.S.No.16 of 2010 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The respondent-plaintiff filed the above suit for the relief of declaration that he is the exclusive owner and possessor of the suit land admeasuring Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.1215 situated at Karimnagar town, and for perpetual injunction. He also filed I.A.No.183 of 2010 in the above suit under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking interim injunction to restrain the appellant-defendant from interfering with the schedule property pending disposal of the suit, stating that the appellant-defendant executed a document in his favour and one Ailaiah in respect of the schedule land and he got mutated his name in the revenue records and the defendant has no right to claim the land in question. In support of the application, he also filed as many as six documents viz., mutation proceedings, certified copy of Mutation register for the year 2005-2006 and pahani copies of the years 2005 to 2008. The appellant herein filed counter-affidavit before the Court below stating that he never executed any document in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was never in possession of the schedule property and there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. Taking into consideration the material on record, the Court below granted interim injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff to protect his possession. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant- defendant. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent. Perused the material available on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant contended that the pahani copies show the possession of the appellant over the suit schedule property and that he never executed any documents in favour of the respondent-plaintiff as alleged, and as such, that the Court below ought not to have granted interim injunction in favour of the respondent- plaintiff. On a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that except the counter-affidavit filed in the above I.A., that no material is placed by the appellant-defendant, to show that he is in possession of the schedule land, whereas the respondent-plaintiff filed mutation register and pahani copies to show his possession over the schedule property. Therefore, we feel that the order of the Court below granting injunction against the respondent-plaintiff does not warrant any interference by this Court, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. The parties are at liberty to get the documents available with them marked at the time of trial of the suit. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice N.V. Ramana _____________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao Date: 20.6.2011 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A No.63 OF 2011 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 20.6.2011