THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.2519 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the order, dated 8.4.2008 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.719 of 2007 in O.S.No. 61 of 2007 whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 151 CPC to direct the revision petitioners to hand over the keys of the portion bearing D.No.23-50-13 (north side) and middle portion D.No.23-50-12/1, Dayalanagar, B.C.Road, Gajuwaka to him, was allowed. 2. The petitioners are the defendants. The respondent, who is plaintiff, filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. The respondent also filed I.A. No. 312 of 2007 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and obtained status-quo order, which was extended from time to time till 04.05.2007. It is the case of the respondent that on 7.4.2007, when he went to duty, the petitioners along with one I.Sundara Rao and O.Nagaraju trespassed into the northern portion bearing No.23-50-13 and middle portion bearing No.23-50-12/1, by breaking open the lock. On coming to know, the respondent lodged a complaint with Gajuwaka Police Station and to that effect he filed Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the Police. 3. On the other hand, the case of the petitioners is that the respondent has no manner of right or title over the property bearing D.No.23-50-12/1 and 23- 50-13 and they purchased the said property under a registered posessory sale agreement coupled with irrevocable GPA. The trial court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the I.A. on the ground that the petitioners have not placed any document before it to show their possession over the said property and directed them to hand over the keys to the respondent in respect of portion bearing No.23-50-13 and middle portion D.No.23-50-12/1. Hence, this C.R.P. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have filed written statement in the suit to show that they have purchased the property in question under a registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA and they are in possession of it. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. It is seen that the trial court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, has ordered the parties to maintain status-quo in I.A. No.312 of 2007 filed by the respondent. During the subsistence of the status-quo, the petitioners trespassed into the northern portion bearing D.No.23-50-13 and middle portion bearing D.No.23-50-12/1, by breaking open the lock in the absence of the respondent and to that effect the respondent filed a receipt showing that he lodged a complaint with the Gajuwaka Police Station. Therefore, the trial court has passed the impugned order in I.A.No.719 of 2007 directing the petitioners to hand over the keys of portion bearing D.No.23-50-13 (north side) and middle portion D.No.23-50-12/1 to the respondent. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners purchased the said property under agreement of sale-cum- GPA is concerned, it will be decided in the main suit. 6. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 30.10.2009 Stp