THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4445 of 2009 Date: 18-9-2009 Between Peruri Dhanunjaya … Petitioner/ Appellant/ Defendant No.1 and 1. Sanka Anjaneyulu … Respondent No.1/ Respondent No.1/ Plaintiff 2. Chidella Ram Prasad and 3 others … Respondents 2 to 5/ Respondents 2 to 5/ Defendants 2 to 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4445 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard Sri D.Kodanda Rama Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 17-8-2009, in C.M.A.No.14 of 2008, passed by the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district, wherein and whereby the order and decree, dated 04-4- 2008, in I.A.No.177 of 2008 in O.S.No.696 of 2007, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, were set aside. 3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 5 are defendants 2 to 5, respectively, in the suit before the trial Court. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.696 of 2007 before the trial Court for eviction and damages against defendant No.1 in respect of the schedule property admeasuring 100 square yards. Along with the said suit, he also filed the application I.A.No.177 of 2008, under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., seeking to grant ad interim injunction restraining defendant No.1 and his agents from interfering with rights of usage of amenities till disposal of the suit. The said application was allowed, restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of usage of amenities by the plaintiff like water connection, drainage connection and other common usages till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.1 has preferred C.M.A.No.14 of 2008 before the lower appellate Court, which was allowed in part restraining the defendants from interfering with the usage of water connection till disposal of the suit and setting aside the relief of other amenities like drainage connection and other common usages granted by the trial Court. Being not satisfied with the said judgment, defendant No.1 has preferred the present revision. 5. From a perusal of the impugned judgment, I see no reason to interfere with the same. 6. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the impugned judgment. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 18th September, 2009. Ak