IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.442 of 2009 Between: Bobbadi Chinnammadu and two others …Petitioners A n d Gandu Sanyasi …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.442 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 03-11-2008 in C.M.A.No.16 of 2008, on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondent herein, the plaintiff, was allowed and the order dated 24-06-2008 in I.A.No.486 of 2008 in O.S.No.219 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, was set aside and temporary injunction was granted in favour of the respondent-plaintiff restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction. According to the respondent, his father and paternal uncle purchased the schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 02-05-1930 and subsequently in the family partition, the schedule property fell to the share of the respondents’ father and after the death of their father, the respondent and his brothers partitioned the property and the schedule property fell to the share of the respondent and the Mandal Revenue Officer issued pattadar passbooks and title deed book in favour of the respondent and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land by paying the land revenue. The respondent alleged that the petitioners are proclaiming that they would trespass into the schedule land and take away the usufruct of the mango crop alleging that they purchased the same from the brother of the respondent. The respondent filed I.A.No.486 of 2008 for a temporary injunction. The petitioners filed a counter opposing the same and contending that in the family partition between the respondent/ plaintiff and his brothers, the schedule land of Ac.0-25 cents fell to the share of respondent’s brother and he sold the same to the husband of the first petitioner under an agreement of sale dated 25-05-1977 and later executed a registered sale deed dated 06-07-1977 and ever since the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The husband of the first petitioner and others filed O.S.No.102 of 1978, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for declaration and injunction against the brother of the respondent herein and others and after full trial, the suit was dismissed holding that the respondent herein and his family members have no title and the husband of the first petitioner herein has got title and possession. It is stated that the appeal preferred in A.S.No.20 of 1983 was also dismissed. 4. It is not disputed that the respondent filed O.S.No.131 of 1986 during the pendency of A.S.No.20 of 1983 for permanent injunction and the said suit was also dismissed. The husband of first petitioner filed O.S.No.115 of 1993 against the respondent for use and occupation of the said suit was also dismissed holding that the husband of the first petitioner was in possession and the respondent had no possession. The petitioners herein in their counter before the trial Court alleged that the respondent/plaintiff manipulated and created false entries in the revenue records, passbook and title deed through the VAO and based on such fabricated documents filed O.S.No.200 of 2000 against the husband of the first petitioner and also filed I.A.No.345 of 2000 and the same was also dismissed. Subsequently, the said suit was dismissed as abated on 18-02-2006 due to death of husband of first petitioner herein. The petitioners further contended that the schedule property in the above suits and in the present suit are one and the same and in respect of the claim of respondent herein having been negatived in the previous suits, the present suit is again filed only to grab the mango crop which is ready for harvest. 5. During enquiry before the trial Court, Exs.P-1 to P- 5 were marked on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff and Exs.R-1 to R-9 were marked on behalf of the petitioners/defendants. The trial Court, after considering the documentary evidence and also the results of the previous suits, held that the respondent/plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands suppressing the earlier litigation between the parties in respect of the same property and suppressed all the material facts disentitled the respondent/plaintiff from seeking equitable relief of interim injunction. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.486 of 2008 and vacated the ad-interim injunction granted on 16-05-2007. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.16 of 2008 and by the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court and granted temporary injunction holding that the plaintiff could prove prima facie case on the basis of the revenue records. Hence, the present civil revision petition by the defendants. 6. While admitting the civil revision petition, this Court granted an order of interim suspension of the temporary injunction on 10-02-2009 and the same was subsequently extended until further orders. 7. It is to be seen that the suit is one for bare injunction. The impugned orders reveal that in respect of the same property previously there has been several rounds of litigation between the parties which ended against the respondent/plaintiff. The present suit is filed without making any reference to the earlier litigation as observed by the trial Court. In the appeal, the petitioners/defendants contended that the findings in the earlier suit operate as res judicata. The appellate Court observed that the said contention will have to be considered only during the course of trial but not at the interlocutory stage. The appellate Court granted injunction based on the entries in the revenue records produced by the respondent/plaintiff, which according to the petitioners/defendants are false and fabricated and created with a view to get over the adverse impact of the earlier litigation. 8. The question as to whether or not the said entries are false and fabricated is a matter to be deiced on evidence during the course of trial. The various contentions raised by both sides at this interlocutory stage do arise for consideration during the trial also. The temporary injunction granted by the lower appellate Court has since been suspended by this Court while admitting the civil revision petition. 9. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2008 and is one for mere injunction and the rival contentions of the parties regarding their claim of possession is to be necessarily considered at the time of trial, it is felt that the proper course would be to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself instead of going into merits of the said contentions at this interlocutory stage. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to dispose of the suit at an early date preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th April, 2011 Lrkm