THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2194 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.22 of 2009 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent (Mobile Court) Bhadrachalam against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property viz., a house bearing No.4-185/A of Charla Gram Panchayat, Khammam District. She has also filed I.A.No.18 of 2009 for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. The trial Court initially granted an order of ad interim injunction on 11.08.2009. After receipt of the notice, the respondent filed a counter opposing the case of the petitioner. Through order, dated 03.12.2010, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri K.Sarat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, who filed caveat. There is a serious doubt as to the maintainability of the revision. The petitioner ought to have availed the remedy of appeal provided for under Rule 47 of the A.P. Agency Rules. Be that as it may, the petitioner asserted that she is the owner of the suit schedule property and that she obtained permission to construct a room in front of the premises from the Gram Panchayat by paying the requisite fee and when the construction was about to made, the respondent interfered with her possession. In his counter affidavit, the respondent pleaded that the suit schedule property is part of a building constructed by his mother and that the petitioner failed to mention as to how she derived right or title over the said property. The trial Court expressed its inability to arrive at any definite conclusion, since the petitioner failed to plead the manner, in which she acquired the rights over the property, much less she filed the relevant documents. Though the suit was filed for the relief of perpetual injunction, the petitioner was under obligation to mention the nature of rights acquired by her vis-à-vis the suit schedule property. It was urged that respondent continues to be the owner of the property and the petitioner failed to prove at least prima facie as to the nature of her possession or rights. The trial Court cannot be expected to pass any order of injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client may be given an opportunity to place the relevant documents. Strictly speaking, such a course may not be available and the petitioner ought to have taken all the steps before the I.A was disposed of. All the same, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, in case the petitioner is given an opportunity to place the relevant documents before the trial Court. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside, only with a view to pave the way for the petitioner to place the relevant documents before the trial Court and without taking any exception to the view expressed by the trial Court on the material that was already before it. In case, the petitioner places any additional material before the trial Court, in support of her possession or claim to the property, the trial Court shall pass orders afresh; and on the other hand, if no material is placed, the order, which is already passed by the trial Court, shall remain in force. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 15.06.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) Jsu THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2194 of 2011 Date: 15.06.2011 JSU