THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.1819 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 27.12.2007, passed by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad in C.M.A.No.119 of 2007 confirming the order, dated 12.04.2007, passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.328 of 2007 in O.S.No.312 of 2007. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of two sale deeds, bearing Document Nos.2030/69 and 4035/04. Along with the suit, he also filed I.A.Nos.328 and 928 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the first respondent-first defendant from altering the nature of the property. The first respondent filed counter opposing the applications. The trial Court, after considering the material on record and the rival contentions, through its common order, dated 12.04.2007, dismissed the applications observing that the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.328 of 2007, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad in C.M.A.No.119 of 2007. The lower appellate Court also concurred with the findings given by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present civil revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made before the Courts below and sought to allow the revision petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for R1 to R6 supported the impugned order. On 16.12.2009, as the learned counsel for the petitioner represented that he is not pressing the CRP as against R7 and R8, this Court dismissed the CRP accordingly as against R7 and R8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record, including the orders of the Courts below. It is settled principle of law that a person who seeks injunction has to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience. In the instant case, the trial Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence, found that the petitioner failed to make out any prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Even before the lower appellate Court also, as the petitioner failed to prove his possession over the property in question, the lower appellate Court, while concurring with the findings given by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal observing that if any alterations or improvements are made for the petition schedule property, they are subject to the result of the main suit. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, I see no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the admission stage. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:09.02.2010 VGB