THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.3984 of 2010 O R D E R : The revision petitioner is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.561 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. The said suit was filed by the 2nd respondent herein seeking a declaration that the notice dated 16.04.2007 issued by the 1st defendant-Municipal Corporation of Eluru under Sections 452, 461 and 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as well as the consequential order dated 01.10.2007 were arbitrary and illegal. The plaintiff/the 2nd respondent herein also sought for an injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property and dismantling the same. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2556 of 2007 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and the Court below after hearing both the parties by order dated 12.12.2007 granted temporary injunction restraining the 1st defendant-Municipal Corporation and its staff from interfering with plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. It was also observed that since no relief was sought against the defendants 2 and 3, no relief need be granted against them. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant-Municipal Corporation of Eluru, filed CMA.No.54 of 2007 before the Court of Additional District Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Court, West Godavari, Eluru. The said appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 25th March, 2010 confirming the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the 3rd defendant. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the material available on record. While relying upon the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8391 of 2007 dated 29.06.2007, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order of injunction granted by the Courts below was in contravention of the order passed by this Court. It is also contended that the 2nd respondent herein/the plaintiff was not entitled for the discretionary relief of injunction since he did not approach the Court with clean hands. W.P.No.8391 of 2007 was filed by the 2nd respondent herein with a prayer to quash the notice dated 16.04.2007 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Eluru for removal of the alleged illegal constructions made by him. It was contended by the writ petitioner (2nd respondent herein) that the said notice was issued by the Corporation at the behest of the father of the revision petitioner, who was the owner of the property situated on the western side of his property. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing that the impugned notice dated 16.04.2007 shall be treated as the one issued under Section 452 (2) of the Municipal Corporation Act with liberty to the writ petitioner to file his reply and with a further direction to the Commissioner to dispose of the same by recording reasons. It was also added by this Court that if the writ petitioner (2nd respondent herein) challenges the order of the Commissioner by filing appeal or civil suit, then the Appellate Authority or the civil Court shall not pass any order of injunction without hearing the Municipal Corporation and also the father of the revision petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the above direction by the Division Bench of this Court it was not open to the 2nd respondent to file a suit against the notice issued by the Corporation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted since the directions issued by this Court while disposing of W.P.No.8391 of 2007 in no way had curtailed the right of the 2nd respondent herein to avail the common law remedy before a competent Court. It is apparent that the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court as confirmed on appeal are based on proper appreciation of the material available on record. In the light of the said findings and having found that the balance of convenience was in favour of plaintiff and that irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction was not granted, the trial Court had rightly granted the temporary injunction. While upholding the same, the lower Appellate Court had further directed the trial Court to dispose of the main suit itself within two months. The said orders being in accordance with law, warrant no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Order 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 03.12.2010 KLP/RKK