THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.849 of 2009 Dated:19.10.2009 Between: Dr.Mukund Narayan. ….Appellant And Smt.Manisha Gangwal, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.849 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The appellant filed O.S.No.75 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for a injunction simplicitor in respect of two house plots bearing Nos.1325 and 1325A admeasuring 800 square yards comprised in survey No.11/7 situated at Khanamet Village of Rajendranagar Taluq in Ranga Reddy District (hereafter called, suit schedule property). He also filed an interlocutory application, being I.A.No.304 of 2009, for ad interim injunction. Initially, the suit was moved during pongal vacation before this Court. An order of status quo was passed. Subsequently, the trial Court considered the interlocutory application and by impugned order dated 10.06.2009 dismissed the application for injunction holding that the appellant failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that he purchased the suit schedule property from Gurukul Ghatkeswar Trust (the Trust, for brevity) under registered sale deed dated 31.07.1996. Whatever be the reason, he also applied to the Government for regularization/allotment of the said land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Government issued orders under G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.06.2008, enabling regularization of sales transactions within the peripheral area of Hyderabad agglomeration. He alleged that on 07.01.2009, the respondents tried to trespass into the suit schedule property. The respondents opposed the matter. They relied on a registered sale deed dated 21.11.1983 executed by the Trust in respect of plot No.1325A admeasuring 410 square yards. They also denied various other allegations and the allegation of the appellant that he was alone in possession of the entire plot area in plot Nos.1325 and 1325A. When the interlocutory applications were taken up for enquiry, the appellant filed as many as 21 documents which include the sale deed copy, electricity bills, the letters he received from Endowments Department and the like. The respondents also filed three documents, namely, original sale deed dated 21.11.1983, Xerox copy of the application for enrolment of the member and rough sketch plan of the total suit property. Learned Principal District Judge considered the sale deed dated 21.11.1983 and the market value certificate filed by the appellant and four documents filed by the respondents. Learned trial Judge relied on Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, and came to the conclusion that sale deed executed by the Trust on 21.11.1983 being very much earlier in point of time would prevail over the sale deed dated 31.07.1996 and accordingly held that the appellant failed to prove prima facie case. Learned Counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contends that the appellant has filed as many as 21 documents but all the documents were not considered. Specific attention of the Court is invited to the letter the appellant received from the Endowments Department, the electricity bills and his applications to the Government when the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.747. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents, though not denied the filing of the documents by the appellant, submits that the suit itself was not maintainable for noncompliance of Rules 32 and 39 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990. He also submits that the suit was filed without any proper cause of action. The appellant has filed copies of the documents filed by the parties before the lower Court to which our attention has been drawn. There is force in the submission that all the documents especially those relied on by the appellant to prima facie establish his possession were not taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge. Ex.A.1, which is the sale deed executed by the Trust and Ex.A2 which is the market value certificate were alone considered besides Exs.B1 to B4. We are convinced that the non-consideration of other documents of possession filed by the appellant would certainly matter for arriving at conclusion as to appellant proving prima facie case and balance of convenience. So as to enable the learned trial Judge to consider all the documents produced by the parties especially by the appellant, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order in I.A.No.304 of 2009 dated 10.06.2009 is set aside and the said I.A is remanded to the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. Learned Judge may dispose of the I.A within a period of ten days after receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 19.10.2009 vs