THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2069 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the Order dated 23.03.2009 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.14 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. The petitioner herein is the first defendant, the first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent herein is second defendant, in the suit. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. The plaintiff filed Original Suit No.95 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, against the defendants 1 and 2, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring 1038.12 square yards in survey no.120/16 and 120/17 situated in Theegalaguttapally village of Karimnagar district, and filed Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No.533 of 2006 therein for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit on the ground that the defendants were trying to interfere with her possession over the said land. In the I.A., Exs.A.1 to A.18 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.B1 to B36 were marked on behalf of the defendants. 5. The trial court, by its order dated 15.11.2007 in the I.A., came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved her prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss that she would sustain if injunction is not granted, and accordingly granted temporary injunction. On appeal, the said order was confirmed by the appellate court. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/D.1 contended that no finding is given by the both the courts below with regard to possession of the first respondent herein over the suit schedule property; that the documents filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in the trial court have not been considered by both the courts below and the principles for granting of temporary injunction as laid down by the Supreme Court in Seema Arshad Zaheer and others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & others[1] have not been followed. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned orders. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that, after consideration of the evidence on record in right perspective, both the courts below gave concurrent findings and there are no grounds to interfere with the same in this revision. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the revision. 8. In the decision in Seema Arshad Zaheer’s case (1 supra), it is held thus: (para 29) “The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff: (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of plaintiff’s rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii)when the need for protection of plaintiff’s rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of defendant’s rights or likely infringement of defendant’s rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff’s conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.” 9. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory jurisdiction. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact arrived at by the inferior Court or Tribunal if there was no evidence to justify the said conclusion, and if any reasonable person could not possibly have come to conclusion which the Court or Tribunal has come to, or in other words, it is a finding which was perverse in law. Except to this limited extent, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the fact. It cannot be used as appeal or revisional power. It has got only to the limited extent to examine whether the subordinate Court kept itself within the bounds of its authority in reaching the findings of fact. If the courts below have not taken into consideration the relevant principles for granting temporary injunction or that the findings are not based upon any evidence or perverse findings are given, then it can be said to be a just ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 10. To know whether the findings are correct or not, it is necessary to refer to the documents filed on behalf of both the parties. Ex.A1-registered deed, proves prima facie title. In pattadar column of Exs.A4 to A.11, which are pahanis, name of the vendor of the plaintiff is shown. The plaintiff also applied for permission from the gram panchayat for building construction. Unless the plaintiff is in possession of the property, Exs.A12 to A.14 would not have been issued to her. Though the plaintiff purchased the land from the original allottee Koppaalli Bhoomaiah, his name has not been mutated in the revenue records. In view of the documents Exs.A1 to A18, the courts below rightly placed reliance on these documents so as to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff has got title and possession over the property and balance of convenience is also in her favour. 11. The trial court has not placed any reliance on Exs.B1 to B33 because they do not contain any sub- division numbers. Only survey no.120 has been mentioned therein. Therefore, the trial court has not placed any reliance thereon. With regard to title to the property, it is observed by the appellate court that the vendor of the society from whom the first defendant purchased the property, has no title. So, considering the material on record, the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly came to conclusion and the said orders do not suffer from any illegality so as to call for interference. 12. However, since the suit is of the year 2006, the trial court shall take endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible and both parties are directed to adduce their respective evidence in accordance with law. It is made clear that, observation, if any, made in this order is only for the purpose of disposal of this revision and the same cannot be taken as a finding of this court, and uninfluenced by the observation, the trial court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law. 13. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 04.11.2009 Drk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2069 OF 2009 Date: 04.11.2009 Between: K.Janaiah …Petitioner And Mittapally Sharmila & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2069 OF 2009 04.11.2009 DRK [1] 2006(5) ALT 26 (SC)