THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2632 of 2010 Dated: 29-7-2010 Oral order: This revision by the defendant is directed against the order dated 8-4-2010 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki allowing CMA No. 4 of 2008. The respondent filed O.S.No. 258 of 2007 against the revision petitioner for a permanent injunction to restrain him from interfering with the plaintiff’s right to peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. I.A.No. 1509 of 2007 was filed for temporary injunction. Though the trial court found the plaintiff prima facie to be in possession of the property, it declined to grant relief on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of suppression of a material fact, namely of the defendant having filed ATC 2 of 2007 under Section 15 (1) and 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act (seeking a pre-emptive right to purchase the suit schedule property from the landlord/plaintiff and also injunction application therein to restrain the plaintiff/landlord from evicting him pending the ATC). Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for interim injunction, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed CMA No. 4 of 2008 which was allowed by the court below. The lower appellate court while concurring with the prima facie findings of the trial court that the plaintiff had established his possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit, over-turned the conclusion of the trial court that no relief could be granted, since the plaintiff failed to plead about the factum of ATC 2 of 2007 having been filed by the defendant against the plaintiff. The lower appellate court found that the omission to mention about ATC 2 of 2007 in the plaint or in the application for interim injunction, did not constitute suppression of a material fact as the scope of ATC 2 of 2007 is distinct from the scope of the lis in the suit or in the interim relief claimed therein. Accordingly the appeal was allowed, the order of the trial court rejecting I.A.No. 1509 of 2007 was set aside and injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Whereagainst this revision is filed. This Court discerns no error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The revision is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 29th July, 2010. GRR