The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.4953 of 2009 Order: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.567 of 2008 aggrieved by Order, dated 16-12-2008, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, in I.A.No.294 of 2008, as confirmed by the learned VI Additional District Judge (III-FTC), Warangal at Mahabubabad, vide C.M.A.No.3 of 2009, dated 18-08-2009. Respondents herein filed the aforesaid suit for perpetual injunction stating that they have purchased the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.1-07 guntas in Survey No.329/C3 from the petitioner herein under registered sale deed bearing No.1316/2004, dated 27th August, 2004 and since then, they are in uninterrupted possession of the same, but, the petitioner herein is interfering with their possession. Along with the suit, they filed I.A.No.294 of 2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction and the trial Court, after considering the material available on record, granted temporary injunction vide Order, dated 16-12-2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal being C.M.A.No.3 of 2009, but the same was dismissed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Warangal, vide Order, dated 18- 08-2009. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not sell the land in question and that the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of Ex.P.1- registered sale deed does not contain the survey numbers of the neighbouring properties and taking advantage of the same, the respondents have obtained the temporary injunction with respect to the land in question, which belongs to the petitioner. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant and having perused the material available on record, it is to be seen that consequent to the alleged purchase of the land in question by the respondents/plaintiffs, mutation of the names of the respondents/plaintiffs were effected in the revenue records and entries were made in the pahani pathri reflecting the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs thereon. As averred by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if there is any ambiguity or error in mentioning the survey numbers of the boundaries etc., in the sale deed, it is for the petitioner to seek rectification of the same. Till then, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, to the effect that the land in question belongs to the petitioner and that he did not sell the same to the respondents, cannot be accepted. In my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, having considered the prima facie material, which shows that the respondents were in actual and physical possession of the land in question, rightly decided the issue in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 8th December, 2009 lur