THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4237 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order, dated 20.05.2011 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Warangal, in C.M.A.No.87 of 2010. Petitioner herein is the second defendant in O.S.No.760 of 2010 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, respondents 1 and 2 herein filed I.A.No.1059 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent has purchased items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties from the third respondent/first defendant and his wife, by a registered sale deed and took delivery of possession and likewise, the second respondent has purchased items 3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties under a registered sale deed. It is the case of respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs that the petitioner and the third respondent are interfering with their possession without any authority of law. Before the trial Court, no oral evidence was let in by both the parties, Exs.P.1 to P.19 were marked on behalf of respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, and Exs.R.1 to R.16 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and the third respondent, who are the defendants. The trial Court believed the case of respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs in view of recitals made in registered sale deeds, Exs.P.1 and P.2 and thereby, allowed I.A.No.1059 of 2010 granting ad interim injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/second defendant carried the matter in C.M.A.No.87 of 2010. The lower appellate Court also confirmed the order of the trial Court granting ad interim injunction. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the bore-wells in question are not covered by Exs.P.1 and P.2, in view of recitals made in Exs.P.1 and P.2 and in view of documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, the case is made out by respondents 1 and 2 and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment, which warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner pleads that the bore-wells are in the land retained by him, it is for him to prove before the trial Court in O.S.No.760 of 2010. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th NOVEMBER, 2011. kvni