THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5227 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.03.2009 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri in I.A.No.157 of 2008 in O.S.No.142 of 2008. It is stated that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.818 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District for perpetual injunction against the defendant-petitioner herein restraining her from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, he also filed I.A.No.2749 of 2006 for interim injunction and I.A.No.860 of 2007 for police protection and the said I.As were allowed on 31.12.2007 and 22.01.2008 respectively. Subsequently, O.S.No.860 of 2007 was renumbered as O.S.No.142 of 2008 in the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri. While so, the respondent/plaintiff alleging that on 10.04.2008, when he vacated the suit schedule property to make modifications, the petitioner/defendant illegally tress passed into the schedule mentioned property by break opening the lock and occupied it, filed the present I.A. seeking restitution of the petition schedule property to him. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record, held that the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal in I.A.No.2747 of 2006 has become final, and therefore, the petitioner/defendant cannot be permitted to plead with impunity that she is in possession of the schedule mentioned property rendering the order of temporary injunction nugatory and that though it is not a situation for invoking the provisions of Section 144 C.P.C, in view of the law laid down by this Court in T.Penchalaiah v. Jaladanki Saroja (died) per L.Rs[1], allowed the I.A ordering restitution. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the entire material available on record, I am of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the Court below being based on proper appreciation of the evidence, do not require any interference at the hands of this Court in revision. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. N.V.RAMANA, J Date.07.12.2009 va [1] (2006(6) ALT 411)