THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3408 OF 2009 Dated 23rd July, 2010 Between: Mohd Yakub and five others …Petitioners And S.Laxmi Reddy …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S.Venkata Subba Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri V.Srinivas The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 22.06.2009 in I.A.No.190 of 2009 in O.S.No.1338 of 2007 on the file of the II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. I have heard Sri S.Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel representing the respondent. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.1338 of 2007 for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. After filing of the written statement by the petitioners, the Court below framed two issues, namely; (1) whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction and (2) to what relief. The petitioners filed I.A.No.190 of 2009 for framing an additional issue as to whether agreement of sale dated 25.03.1992, based on which the respondent has filed the suit for injunction, was genuine or fabricated. The said application was dismissed by the learned II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. Assailing the validity of the said order, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition. While dismissing the I.A., the Court below has held that as the suit filed by the respondent is for injunction simplicitor, there is no need for the Court to decide on the nature of the agreement of sale. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order under revision does not call for any interference. Ordinarily a suit for injunction is decided on the basis of the possession of the parties. However, in appropriate cases, the issue of title will be considered incidentally. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Court below to adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of the agreement of sale filed by the respondent. If the petitioners so choose, they are entitled to file a substantive suit for declaration of their title and pendency of the present suit will not come in their way for availing such remedy. On the premises as above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, CRPMP No.4726 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd July, 2010 vrn