THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 3844 of 2011. ORDER: This revision under Article 227 by the defendants in O.S.No. 1461 of 2009 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and is directed against the order dt. 2.6.2011 in C.M.A.No. 6 of 2010 of the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam confirming the interim injunction granted by the trial court in favour of the respondent Devasthanam. The respondent (Devasthanam) filed the suit for a permanent injunction claiming title to the suit schedule property situate in S.No. 275 of Adavivaram village of Visakhapatnam District. The case of the revision petitioners is that they purchased 579.99 sq. yards in S.No. 1/P in Plot No. MIG 29 and 30 in Maddilapalem village under possessory sale agreement coupled with power of attorney, under two documents dt. 1.9.2008 and 8.8.2008 from one Chillikapalli Venkata Satya Manekyeswararao and Pydimukkala Sundara Nalini respectively who derived title from their predecessors-in-title, who in turn obtained the property from VUDA. From the orders of the trial court granting interim injunction and of the lower appellate court confirming the same; the latter of which is in question in this revision, there is apparent serious dispute as to whether the schedule property is in S.No. 275 of Adavivaram village or in Maddilapalem village. While the plaintiff Devasthanam does not claim any property in Maddilapalem village, the defendants assert that the property is not in Adavivaram village but in Maddilapalem village. Survey of the entire properties on the border of the two villages is under process and as on date there is no material on record to infer whether the property in question is in Adavivaram or Maddilapalem. The courts below, despite recording no finding as to whether the property is in Adavivaram, as claimed by the respondent, granted interim injunction. Indisputably construction of a multi storied apartment complex has almost been completed over the suit schedule property and occupancy certificate has also been issued by the Municipal Authorities and some of the apartments have also been occupied. In the circumstances, in the absence of any clear finding as to the identity of the land whether it falls in Adavivaram village of Maddilapalem village and in view of the prima facie possession of the property by the revision petitioners, in the considered view of this Court, grant of an injunction restraining the revision petitioners from proceeding with further construction constitutes clear error in the exercise of discretion, warranting interdiction by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the above premise, this revision is allowed. The order of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in C.M.A.No. 6 of2010 is set aside. Nothing in this order shall however be construed as an expression by this Court on the substantive merits of the contentions by the respective parties. The trial court shall to proceed to adjudicate the suit, in accordance with law and the material on record. It is open to the respondents/plaintiff to file an appropriate application for interim relief and marshal evidence and material to substantiate the identity and location of the schedule property and their title thereto; and if such application is filed, the same may be determined after considering and hearing the objections thereto that may be filed by the revision petitioners, in accordance with law. There shall however be no order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 30.09.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 3844 of 2011. ORDER: Dt. 30.09.2011.