IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2910 of 2009 and 3422 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2910 of 2009 Between: Kuruva Veeresamma ..... PETITIONER AND Kuruva Sukanethi Ambanna and another .....RESPONDENTS CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3422 of 2009 Between: Kuruva Krishna and four others ..... PETITIONERS AND Kuruva Sambaiah and three others .....RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.Nos.2910 of 2009 and 3422 of 2009 are being disposed of by a common order in view of the commonality of the questions of fact and questions of law involved in both these matters. In both the CRPs notice before admission was ordered on 29-07-2009. Sri Janaki Ram Reddy learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of both the respondents in C.R.P.No.2910 of 2009. C.R.P.No.2910 of 2009 is filed by the revision petitioner being aggrieved by an order made in CMA No.5 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. Likewise C.R.P.No.3422 of 2009 is filed against the order made in CMA No.50 of 2007 on the file of II Addl. District Judge, Kurool. The revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2910 of 2009 filed I.A.No.55 of 2004 in O.S.No.12 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Alur praying for the relief of temporary injunction on the ground that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule land, which she got by way of inheritance. The court at first instance, on appreciation of Exs.A-1 and A-2 and Exs.B-1 to B-5, after recording the reasons came to a conclusion that the petitioner/plaintiff was unable to establish the prima facie possession over the suit schedule property and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by he said order the said petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal in CMA No.5 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. The appellate court having formulated the point for consideration at para 4 recorded the reasons in detail and ultimately came to the conclusion that this is not a fit matter to be interfered with and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same the present C.R.P.No.2910 of 2009 had been preferred. The first respondent in C.R.P.No.3422 of 2009 as plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance on the strength of agreement of sale and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, on appreciation of Ex.P-1 to P-23 and Exs.R-1 to R-8, came to a conclusion that the petitioner as plaintiff is entitled for injunction during the pendency of the suit and accordingly allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same the matter was carried by CMA No.50 of 2007 on the file of II Addl. District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni and the appellate court having formulated the point for consideration at para 10 recorded reasons commencing from paras 11 to 20 and ultimately dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Aggrieved by the same the present CRP No.3422 of 2009 had been preferred. This court had carefully gone through the orders made by the respective courts at first instance and also by the appellate court and in the light of the concurrent findings recorded prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, this court is not inclined to interfere with the orders under challenge. It is needless to say that these are only prima facie findings recorded for the purpose of disposal of interlocutory applications and hence, the suits are to be disposed of not being influenced by any such findings recorded in these interlocutory applications. Subject to the above observation, the CRPs shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. However, let the respective courts of first instance dispose of the suits at the earliest point of time. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J September 2, 2009. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2910 of 2009 AND 3422 OF 2009 September 2, 2009