THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5009 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.814 of 2005 in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of four items of the landed property, situated in different survey numbers of Manchikalapadu Village of Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. They also filed I.A.No.558 of 2005 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. It was their case that the property was purchased under four separate sale deeds marked as Exs.P1 to P4 and that ever since the date of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioners have also filed the pattadar pass books, marked as Exs.P12 to P16; title deeds, Exs.P17 to P21 and extracts of adangals, Exs.P7 to P10. They alleged that the respondent is trying to interfere with the possession of the land. The respondent filed a detailed counter opposing the I.A. He pleaded title under two sale deeds, marked as Exs.R5 and R6 and he too filed pattadar pass book and adangals, etc. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 19.01.2007, on finding that the petitioners failed to prove their possession. The petitioners filed C.M.A.No.11 of 2007 in the Court of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court) Ongole. The appeal was dismissed on 07.09.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri N.Parameswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The revision arises out of an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The trial Court has undertaken extensive discussion with reference to the facts pleaded by the parties and the documents filed by them. Though the petitioners have placed before the trial Court, sale deeds said to have been executed in their favour, pattadar pass books and title deeds issued by the revenue authorities, on the question of possession, the evidence was not strong enough. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court observed that even as per Ex.P9 filed by the petitioners, the vendor of the respondent is in possession of the substantial extent of the property. This Court does not find any serious infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. The scope of interference in a revision in matters of this nature is very limited. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit, as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.11.2011 kdl