THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1314 & 1361 of 2011 Dated 08th July, 2011 Between: Dyagala Yadaiah …Petitioner (C.R.P.No.1314 of 2011) And Maddi Susheela and another …Respondents (C.R.P.No.1314 of 2011) Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Sriram Krishna Murthy The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two civil revision petitions arise out of orders, dated 29.09.2010, in I.A.No.896 of 2008 in O.S.No.299 of 2007, and I.A.No.895 of 2008 in O.S.No.296 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir. Though the parties are different, as the issues raised in these two civil revision petitions are identical, they are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioners filed the above two applications for their impleadment as defendants in the suit filed by the respondents for perpetual injunction in respect of the lands in their occupation in Survey Nos.219/11 and 219/25 of Nemarugomula Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is the case of the petitioners that in the guise of the temporary injunction orders obtained by the respondents, the latter have been trying to occupy their lands. The Court below has examined both the applications and dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioners failed to establish that the lands claimed by them and the suit schedule properties are one and the same. In my opinion, the Court below has not made a proper approach in rejecting the petitioners’ applications. The only issue that was relevant at the stage of considering the applications for impleadment is whether the applicants have made out a prima facie case of their interest in the suit schedule property. It is not the function of the Court to make a minute examination of the case of the applicants with reference to the evidence in order to find out whether the applicants have interest over the suit schedule property or not. This exercise is required to be undertaken only during the trial of the case. Having examined the rival pleadings of the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are able to prima facie satisfy that they have interest in the subject matter of the suit, as it is their specific allegation that in the guise of the injunction orders with respect to the lands in Survey Nos.219/11 and 219/25, the respondents are seeking to interfere with the lands in their possession. In this view of the matter, the orders under revisions are set aside, I.A.No.896 of 2008 in O.S.No.299 of 2007 and I.A.No.895 of 2008 in O.S.No.296 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir are allowed and the petitioners are accordingly allowed to come on record as the defendants in the respective suits. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th July, 2011 VGB