THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.960 of 2010 15.3.2010 Between: Tenireddy Satyanarayana, S/o.Pasuvulu And others …Petitioners and M/s.Srinivasa Private Godowns (Regd.No.69/2002) represented by its Partners – 1. Eatakota Bhimasankara Rao 2. Eatakota Kondababu …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.960 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioners who are 21 in number are Hamalis/Manual workers in various godowns of Tadepalligudem. They are also members of Sri Srinivasa Private Godowns Workers Union, Pedatadepalli. Statedly, the Union is affiliated to Indian Federation of Trade Unions and registered in the office of District Labour Commissioner. The respondents are partners of Sri Srinivasa Private Godowns. They instituted O.S.No.9 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, for permanent injunction restraining all the petitioners herein (defendants in the said suit) from ever interfering with plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment, loading and unloading operations in the plaint schedule property. The respondents alleged in their plaint that all the petitioners are not workers, that they are strangers and that they are proclaiming that they would trespass into the godowns and obstruct storage, loading and unloading operations. The respondents also filed I.A.No.35 of 2010 for grant of ad interim injunction. The trial Court granted ad interim injunction on 21.1.2010, which was extended on 08.2.2010. Petitioners 7 and 21, President and General Secretary of the Union, filed counter praying for dismissal of interlocutory application for injunction. The same is pending. In this civil revision petition, petitioners impugn the registration of suit itself by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. Indisputably, the Court only granted ad interim ex parte injunction. Petitioners through their President and General Secretary also filed counter and the interlocutory application is coming up for enquiry. That being the position, revision petition to interdict proceedings in the Civil Court cannot be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners challenge the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining a dispute between the management and workmen, they can file application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) or petition under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC for deciding preliminary issue. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) March 15, 2010. YS