THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2 of 2010 O R D E R: The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.67 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, on his failure to secure a temporary injunction pending the suit against the defendants in I.A.No.215 of 2009 before the trial Court and in C.M.A.No.8 of 2009 before the appellate Court, approached this Court with this revision. The factual back ground is that the plaintiff claims to be the absolute and exclusive possessor and owner of suit house No.7-174 (new) of Kohir village having succeeded from his father. The plaintiff who claims the property to have been acquired under the registered sale deed dated 10.11.1964 by his father stated that the defendant has no right or concern over the suit house or the open land to the west of the suit house, which is part and parcel of the suit house while there is a road to the west of the said open land. Alleging that the defendant made an attempt to make an opening towards the open land of the plaintiff on 15.5.2009 and 25.5.2009 in spite of resistance, the plaintiff filed the suit for a permanent injunction and sought for an interim injunction in I.A.No.215 of 2009. The defendant resisted the request alleging that the boundary wall on the west of the suit house is intact and beyond the boundary wall, there is a lane leading to the Panchayat road. The said lane is on the north of the defendant’s house and there is a door to his house opened into that lane, since inception. The land is a common place used for ingress and egress by the defendant and his predecessors since long and, hence, the defendant desired the request to be negatived. After marking Exs.P.1 to P.8 and Ex.R.1 during enquiry, the trial Court found that the ownership and title of the plaintiff in respect of his house and the defendant being the neighbouring resident are not in dispute. The trial Court opined that Ex.P.1 sale deed indicates that there is no open land of the plaintiff on the western side and there is a way of the Government on the western side of the suit house, which does not belong to the plaintiff. Even otherwise the trial Court found that Ex.R.1 photographs show the existence of a door in the defendant’s property, which was already opened into the disputed site and, therefore, the appropriate remedy of the plaintiff would be to seek a mandatory injunction concerning the door. Negativing of I.A.No.215 of 2009 by the trial Court on such grounds led the plaintiff to file C.M.A.No.8 of 2009 before the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, who in her judgment dated 04.12.2009 concurred with the trial Court. The appellate Judge also noted that Ex.P.2 translation of Ex.P.1 sale deed showed the western boundary as Seri and the open land claimed by the plaintiff did not find a mention in Exs.P.1 and P.2. The appellate Court also found that it is only after full trial, the Court can come to any conclusion on the dispute, more so, in the face of Ex.R.1 photographs and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff reiterates his contentions in this revision and contended that Exs.P.1 and P.2 were wrongly interpreted while they clearly showed that the western boundary to the suit house of the plaintiff is public way /present by public road and the distinction between the western portion of the suit house and western boundary of the suit house was not considered by the Courts below. Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, learned counsel for the plaintiff reiterated the said contentions while Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent defended the orders of the Court below. The only question that falls for consideration is any need for interference with the orders of the trial Court or the appellate Court on the facts and circumstances on record. The plaintiff and the defendant are admittedly neighbouring residents and owners and possessors of adjacent properties. The question whether Exs.P.1 and P.2 indicate only the existence of a public way on the west or also indicate an extent of some open place to the west of the constructed house of the plaintiff beyond which there is a public way is a question that falls for consideration in the suit after recording the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, in the light of disputed contentions about the existence or fall of the boundary wall and other conflicting claims about the physical features of the property. While the public way or public road beyond the abutting open space left by the plaintiff is admittedly in existence to be of use to the members of the public including the defendant, the conclusion of the trial Court and the first appellate Court about Ex.R.1 disclosing the existence of a door at present from the property of the defendant into the public road is not factually in dispute. If so, the courts below cannot be considered wrong in concluding that a prohibitory temporary injunction is not the appropriate remedy against the defendant pending the suit. Sri Mohd.Ghulam Hussain, learned counsel for the revision petitioner expressed apprehensions about the possibility of attempts by the defendant of opening more gates, doors or windows into the public road claiming even the door shown in Ex.R.1 to have come into existence subsequent to the suit. Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent assured that the existing physical features of the defendants property as shown in Ex.R.1 will not be changed pending determination of the suit on merits by the trial Court except attending to the maintenance of the property. The assurance of the learned counsel is therefore placed on record requiring no further directions from this Court in this connection. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition should fail and is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 9th July, 2010. PNV