IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.2610 of 2010 Date: 18th August, 2010 Between: Duttapati Seshaiah .. Petitioner And Nellore Ramaiah and another. .. Respondents ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order made in I.A.No.462 of 2010 in A.S.No.39 of 2010 dated 4.6.2010 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore, whereunder the application filed under Section 94(E), Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction was dismissed. Petitioner is plaintiff and respondents are defendants. It appears, petitioner laid suit in O.S.No.508 of 2005 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property and the said suit was decreed partly. Being aggrieved thereby, petitioner carried the matter in appeal in A.S.No.39 of 2010 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore. During the pendency of the said appeal, he filed the present I.A.No.462 of 2010 for grant of temporary injunction. The respondents filed a detailed counter resisting the said application. However, the Court below vide impugned order dated 4.6.2010 dismissed the said application holding as under: “The petitioner also filed cist receipts, adangals. Admittedly, he got Ac.1.00 which was jointly purchased. So, payment of cist to be established it was for Ac.2.00. Even though the counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner could show prima facie title and possession, but on perusal of the record, there is no material to show that the petitioner acquired title by adverse possession by ouster of China Mangamma during her lifetime. The documents reveal that they were in joint possession for some time and thereafter there was oral partition. The physical features also shows the disputed Ac.1.00 consists of Mango trees, the undisputed Ac.1.00 which is in possession of petitioner consists of fish ponds. This Court has perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court. The petitioner could not show prima facie case to get injunction pending disposal of the appeal. As the appeal itself is pending for hearing, the Court can go into deep in the disposal of the appeal on merits. But to get ex parte injunction, the petitioner must show strong prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour which were negatived by the trial Court. The case of the petitioner is that he got title by ouster which is not established by strong evidence. Therefore, this Court did not find any merits to grant temporary injunction in spite of the petitioner having temporary injunction in the trial Court. So, the petition is liable to be dismissed.” Being aggrieved by the said order, the present C.R.P. is filed. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It appears, during the pendency of suit, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore granted interim injunction vide order dated 20.12.2005 in I.A.No.919 of 2005 in O.S.No.508 of 2005, which reads as under: “Accordingly, issue ad-interim injunction dispensing with notice restraining the respondents from causing any damage to any portion of the plaint schedule land and structures thereon including the fish pond and any other standing crop and to maintain existing physical features of the plaint schedule property”. Both the counsel appearing for parties agreed for maintaining the said order during the pendency of appeal in A.S.No.39 of 2010 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore. Under those circumstances, the C.R.P. is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.6.2010 is set aside. The I.A.No.462 of 2010 filed for grant of temporary injunction is ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 18.8.2010 DA