THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Civil Revision Petition No.4956 of 2010 Date: 22.11.2010 Between: Tirupathi Raghunath and others. … Petitioners And Tirupathi Shankar … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Civil Revision Petition No.4956 of 2010 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order and decree, dated 15.7.2010, made in C.M.A.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoti, Kadapa District, whereunder the order and decree, dated 25.3.2009, made in I.A.No.268 of 2008 in O.S.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli, Kadapa District, granting injunction to the respondent-plaintiff has been confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 2. The petitioners are defendants and respondent is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit O.S.No.43 of 2008. 3. The plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, he also filed I.A.No.268 of 2008 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. The said application was ordered and the same was made absolute on 25.3.2009. Aggrieved thereby the defendants carried the matter in appeal in C.M.A.No.5 of 2010 before the learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoti, Kadapa District. The lower appellate Court, after going through the order passed by the trial Court and the other material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference and, therefore, while confirming the said order, dismissed the appeal, by order and decree, dated 15.7.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants strenuously contended that the defendants were granted D.K.T. patta on 30.10.1981 and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. 5. It seems, as against the very same land, D.K.T. patta was granted in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2001 and even the pahanis preceding 3 years of the suit shows the name of the plaintiff. Under those circumstances, the trial Court granted injunction to the plaintiff and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 6. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that even as on today they are in possession and enjoyment of the property since 1981 and possession of the plaintiff preceding 3 years of the suit must not have been taken into consideration by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the orders and decrees passed by both the Courts below are erroneous. 7. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendants. Once it is an admitted fact that in the year 2001 D.K.T. patta was issued in favour of the plaintiff and he is shown to have been in possession and enjoyment of the property for 3 years continuously; on the basis of which injunction was granted cannot be found fault with. Therefore, no interference can be made into the orders passed by both the Courts below. 8. For the foregoing, the civil revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, any observations made herein will not have any bearing on the merits of the main suit. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 22.11.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Civil Revision Petition No.4956 of 2010 22.11.2010 (Msr)