THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.93 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.105 of 2008 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, for the relief of perpetual injunction, against the petitioners. She has also filed I.A.No.493 of 2008, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The petitioners opposed the I.A. The suit was in relation to a house site of Ac.0.03 cents, that was assigned in favour of the respondent. Through its order, dated 20.02.2009, the trial Court allowed the I.A., and granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2009 in the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Rayachoty. The C.M.A. was dismissed on 08.12.2009. Hence, this revision petition. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners. The suit was filed for the relief of injunction simplicitor. The respondent pleaded that she was assigned an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of house site, and that the Government has also extended financial help. She alleged that the petitioners are trying to interfere with her possession of plot, and construction being made upon it. Before the trial Court, the respondent filed a copy of DKT-Patta certificate; the proceedings, through which she was extended financial help; the permission accorded by the Gram Panchayat and a copy of the complaint filed by her. The petitioners, on the other hand, pleaded that though the respondent was allotted a house site, she made application for construction by showing the boundaries of their plot. The trial Court undertook extensive discussion, may be in the limited context of the I.A., and was, prima facie, satisfied that the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent. The lower Appellate Court has also affirmed the same view. The petitioners do not dispute the factum of assignment of plot in favour of the respondent. Though in the ordinary course of things construction would not be permitted on the strength of temporary injunction, an exception had to be carved out, since the respondent is under obligation to complete the construction within a time frame. Any delay would result in denial of the benefit to her. The claim of the petitioners, which is mainly about the boundaries of the plot, can be examined in the final hearing of the suit itself. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit itself, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08.02.2010. GJ