IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3023 of 2010 Between: Suggu Jaya Prakash Reddy & 2 others … Petitioners And: Udayanath Das … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3023 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2010 in CMA No.15 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Srikakulam, where the said appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed, confirming the order dated 15.04.2009 in IA No.34 of 2009 in OS No.15 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from trespassing into or otherwise, interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule site. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed IA No.34 of 2009 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for temporary injunction. The petitioners/defendants filed counter opposing the same. The trial Court after considering the documentary evidence adduced by both parties and by reason order dated 15.04.2009 allowed the said application granting temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred CMA No.15 of 2009. The learned District Judge, Srikakulam, by impugned order dated 30.04.2010 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of temporary injunction granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge, after re- appraisal of the material on record. Thereafter, the defendants filed the present revision. 4. While admitting the revision, this court by interim order dated 16.07.2010 in CRP MP No.4019 of 2010 ordered as follows: “It is true that the trial Court granted order of temporary injunction and the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The subject matter of the injunction is an alleged passage. As of now, the theatre, which may being run, is also not functioning. No harm would be caused to any one, if the petitioner is permitted to have a right of way, with a restriction that he shall not make any construction, opening to the disputed road. Hence, there shall be interim suspension, as prayed for, subject, however, to the condition that the petitioner shall have only access to the road, but not any right to make any construction abutting the road, or to otherwise meddle with it, until further orders”. 5. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule site is a path way and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the purpose of passage to reach his house. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants attempted to encroach into the suit site over an extent of 287 ft. length and 2 ft. in width towards south of the cinema hall and even broken the cement polls erected by the plaintiff in a line with compound wall of the cinema hall so as to cause disappearance of the evidence of the location of the compound wall, which they had demolished. The defendants on the other hand would contend that in the sale deeds executed in their favour by their vendor, southern boundary is shown as road and passage, allegedly left by the plaintiff is now converted into panchayat road and Pathapatnam panchayat also provided street lights and water facility through the said road. The defendants also alleged that the plaintiff formed a lay out in his site to the east of the defendants’ cinema hall by showing the southern side as panchayat road for providing access to the said plots and the purchasers of the said plots are also using the said road for ingress and egress. 6. Thus, it can be seen from the rival contentions of the parties, the question which arises for consideration mainly is whether the disputed suit site is a path way exclusively belonging to the plaintiff providing access to his house as claimed by him or is a panchayat road meant for ingress and egress of the defendants and others as contended by the defendants has to be necessarily considered by the trial Court on evidence. No doubt, the trial Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff and the same was also confirmed by the appellate Court. The interim order passed by this Court on 16.07.2010 while noting the same, directed interim suspension of the impugned orders subject to the condition that the petitioner shall have only access to the road but not any right to make any construction abutting the road, in view of the fact that as of now the theatre is also not functioning and no harm would be caused to any one if the petitioners are permitted to have passage. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that under the guise of interim order, the petitioners are making constructions with a view to open the same in to the disputed passage. 8. The question as to the nature of the disputed passage as to whether it is a private path way to the plaintiff or a panchayat road meant for use of all, is to be considered on evidence during the course of trial. Admittedly, the suit is filed for permanent injunction only. In the circumstances, it is held that the subject path way shall remain intact and no construction be made on the path way or be opened into the path way pending disposal of the suit. Thus while confirming the temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff by the Courts below, it is directed that the petitioners/defendants shall only have passage through the disputed path way pending disposal of the suit, but they shall not make any construction thereon nor open any construction in to the path way so as to have access thereto. Further, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit itself at an early date, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY Date: 15.03.2011 bss