THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5066 OF 2010 Date: 19-11-2010 Between Lakshmisetty Venkateswara Rao …..Petitioner And Prathipati Vasantha Rao and another …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5066 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision by the first defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to revise the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid dated 09-07-2010 dismissing CMA No. 6 of 2009 filed by him and confirming the order dated 30-04-3009 passed by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in I.A No. 325 of 2006 in O.S No. 750 of 2006 filed for temporary injunction. The first respondent – plaintiff filed the above suit claiming that in the sale conducted by the Senior Inspector-cum-Sales Officer, Krishna District Cooperative Bank Limited for due recovery of the loan amount of one Azmeera Mangya Naik in E.P No. 1567/OSD/2002-03, he became the successful bidder and the auction was knocked down for Rs.2,15,000/- which amount he has paid and the sale was also confirmed on 30-05-2005 by the Deputy Registrar-cum-Officer on Special Duty of the Krishna District Cooperative Bank Limited who issued Ex.A-4 sale certificate in his favour and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same as an absolute owner. Along with the suit, the respondent – plaintiff filed I.A No. 325 of 2006 seeking temporary injunction which was allowed and confirmed in appeal. Hence, the revision. It is not disputed that questioning the confirmation of sale, the petitioner – first defendant filed Writ Petition No. 24598 of 2005 before this Court which is pending and this Court has not passed any order granting stay of auction. Further, the petitioner is not a party to the said E.P. Whether the petitioner’s claim has to be considered before putting the property for auction or not and whether he is entitled to a notice is a matter which has to be decided in the writ petition filed by him. The trial Court accepting the plea of the respondent – plaintiff granted injunction which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Until the sale is set aside accepting the claim of the petitioner and since the respondent – plaintiff has established prima facie case and balance of convenience, temporary injunction was granted in his favour and the same was rightly confirmed by the lower appellate Court. In view of the same, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference of this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously uninfluenced by any of the observations made by it or by the appellate Court while deciding the injunction application. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 19-11-2010 ks