THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1026 of 2010 Date: 27.08.2010 Between: Palakurthi Bhargava Rao … Petitioner and Chinnam Govardhana Rao … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1026 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 14.12.2007, in I.A.No.1815 of 2007 in O.S.No.1460 of 2006, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking modification of the order, dated 16.6.2006, in I.A.No.823 of 2006, and permit him to construct boundary walls, a shed for the purpose of keeping a watchman and to install a gate for safeguarding the suit schedule property. 3. The petitioner filed suit for perpetual injunction in respect of vacant site plot No.15, to an extent of 1008 square yards in R.S.No.75/1, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, along with I.A.No.823 of 2006 seeking temporary injunction. The said application appears to have been ordered restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and with a further condition that the petitioner also shall maintain status quo in respect of physical features of the suit schedule property without raising any further construction pending disposal of the suit. The Court below also made certain observations about the requirement of evidence to decide the genuineness of the Wills filed by either of the parties. It further appears that both the parties have been claiming right over the suit schedule property through different Wills, said to have been executed by one Gajjala Mangamma @ Sesharatnam. Aggrieved the same, the appeal in C.M.A.No.49 of 2006 filed by the respondent- defendant before the V Additional District Judge, Vijyawada, was dismissed confirming the order passed by the Court below with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of the said order. 4. In other words, the order that was passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.823 of 2006 directing the petitioner not to raise any construction, while ordering injunction against the respondent- defendant, had become final. 5. Be that as it may, the present application I.A.No.1815 of 2007 came to be filed seeking permission of the Court to construct boundary walls along with gate and also to raise temporary shed for the purpose of keeping a watchman on the ground that the respondent-defendant and his men are trying to take possession of the property forcibly. On hearing both sides, the Court below passed the impugned order observing that if there is any violation by the respondent, he can be prosecuted under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. The Court below further observed that the rights of the parties shall have to be decided on merits by taking into evidence about the Wills set up by both the parties. It has been further pointed out by the Court below that the lower appellate Court had directed to dispose of the suit within a prescribed period. Therefore, in order to comply with the said direction and also keeping in view the order passed in I.A.No.823 of 2006 had become final, the Court below had rightly rejected the present application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking modification of the said order. 6. For the foregoing, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the impugned order passed by the Court below and hence the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 27.08.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1026 of 2009 27.08.2010 (Msr)