HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4610 OF 2010. DATED 3rd NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN Amara Ramachandra Rao …Petitioner and The State, rep. By the District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole, and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4610 OF 2010. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is ﬁled by the petitioner/plaintiﬀ, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 30.07.2010, vide which, the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Ongole, dismissed I.A.No. 69 of 2005 in O.S.No. 380 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner/plaintiﬀ for amendment of the plaint seeking the relief of mandatory injunction. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiﬀ that the second respondent/defendant issued a patta in his favour and he raised structures therein. Apprehending that the authorities of the third defendant are going to remove the structures raised in the suit schedule property, the petitioner/plaintiﬀ, initially, ﬁled the suit in O.S.No. 380 of 2002 seeking permanent injunction against the respondents. The Court below vide order dated 10.10.2002 granted temporary injunction. However, the defendants demolished the structures raised in the suit schedule property. Hence, he ﬁled the impugned application for amendment of the plaint seeking relief of mandatory injunction, by directing the respondents to reconstruct the building, which was demolished by them during the pendency of the suit. The Court below dismissed the impugned application. Hence, the revision. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of temporary injunction granted by the Court below, the respondents have interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and that the Court below failed to exercise jurisdiction conferred under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. It is to be seen that though the respondents have not contested the impugned application before the Court below, the third respondent has taken a speciﬁc plea denying the very title of the petitioner/plaintiﬀ over the suit schedule land asserting that the Government alienated the land in question to the Municipality under G.O.Ms.No. 1857, dated 22.09.1927; that the patta alleged to have been issued in favour of the petitioner is a fake one and that the petitioner is an unauthorized encroacher of the suit schedule land. It is their further speciﬁc plea that the petitioner encroached the suit schedule property unauthorizedly and constructed a Zinc sheet shed without prior permission and without approval of building plan and therefore, they removed the unauthorized encroachments. On the other hand, the petitioner states that the second respondent has issued patta in respect of the land in question in his favour and therefore, he raised structures therein. As seen from the rival contentions, there exists title dispute between the parties. Unless and until the petitioner establishes his title over the land in question, he has no right to seek relief, directing the respondents to reconstruct the building which was demolished by them. In a suit for permanent injunction, the Court below cannot decide the title dispute between the parties. The Court below, considering the above aspects and also purport of amendment of pleadings, which is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, rightly observed that the petitioner without seeking declaration of the title over the suit schedule property, resorted to the relief of mandatory injunction by way of amendment of plaint, which is not sustainable. I do not see any illegality or irregularly in the order under revision passed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------------- -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 3rd November, 2010. Msnr