THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5307 of 2010 (Dated : 01-03-2011) Between: Shaik Osman Miya and another …petitioners A n d Shaik Buranuddin and others ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5307 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 23.7.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.29 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC assailing the order dated 8.11.2006 passed in I.A.No.297 of 2005 in O.S.No.127 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.127 of 2005. They filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their shares. According to them, Shaik Sharfuddin is the original owner of the suit schedule properties and they are legal heirs of one of the sons of Sharfuddin, namely, Jahangeer Saheb. Defendants 1 and 2 are the surviving sons of Sharfuddin. Defendants 3 and 4 are sons of Mohd. Hussain, who is one of the sons of Sharfuddin. Defendant No.5 is wife of Shaik Jahangir Saheb, who is also one of the sons of Sharfuddin. According to the plaintiffs, they demanded partition of the property, but defendants 1 to 5 did not co-operate with them. Hence, they are constrained to file suit for partition. Defendants 6 to 12 have been added on the ground that they have been put in possession of the suit lands by other defendants as tenants. 3. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.297 of 2005 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. Defendants 1 to 4 did not choose to file counter resisting the application. Defendants 6 to 9 pleaded that they disposed of their property to others and the purchasers are now in possession of the property. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, recorded a finding that sale, if any, during the pendency of the suit is at the risk of the purchasers and such sale does not bind the petitioners. With the above observation, the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 8.11.2006. 5. The plaintiffs assailed the order passed by the trial Court by filing C.M.A.No.29 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. The appellate Court, on re-appraisal of the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to place any material to show that respondents taking advantage of the non-existence of injunction order alienated the suit schedule property. While so observing, the appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal, by order dated 23.7.2010. Hence this revision by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs and perused the order impugned in the revision. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that if the respondents are not restrained from alienating the property, there is every likelihood of their creating third party interest, in which event, the rights of the petitioners will be greatly prejudiced. 8. The petitioners claim the property as the legal representatives of Sharfuddin. Defendants 6 to 12 pleaded in the counter that they purchased the property from Sharfuddin during his lifetime. Defendants 6 to 9 specifically pleaded that they disposed of the properties purchased by them and now third parties are in possession. The petitioners have not placed any material on record to show that on the date of filing of the suit, any of the members of the joint family are in possession of the property. Defendants 6 to 12 have specifically pleaded that they purchased property from Sharfuddin during his lifetime. Such is the material placed on record, the order passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, since the suit is of the year 2005, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY , J Dt.01-03-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5307 of 2010 (Dated : 01-03-2011)