HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 1978 of 2011 Date: 26.12.2011 Between: The Andhra Pradesh Mahila Abhivrudhi Society, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And AWARE, registered society under the Registration of Societies Act, Hyderabad. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 1978 of 2011 O R D E R : Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.958 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District, L.B.Nagar. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. The suit is filed against the revision petitioner/defendant seeking a decree for eviction from the suit schedule premises. While the suit is coming up for trial, the defendant/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1311 of 2010 under Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to direct the plaintiff to cooperate and allow the staff of the defendant to remove all their articles kept and installed in the suit premises. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 04.03.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the defendant. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material available on record shows that the revision petitioner/defendant had earlier filed O.S.No.2430 of 2008 in the Court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for perpetual injunction restraining the 1st respondent herein from interfering with the suit schedule premises. Though temporary injunction was granted, pending the suit, ultimately O.S.No.2430 of 2008 was dismissed for default on 14.07.2009. In the meanwhile, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the present suit i.e. O.S.No.958 of 2008 seeking eviction. The defendant filed a detailed written statement contesting the suit for eviction. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were settled and trial is in progress. At that stage, I.A.No.1311 of 2010 came to be filed pleading that the defendant had vacated the suit premises on 01.01.2008 itself, however, the furniture belonging to the defendant including fans air conditioners, television, generator etc., remained in the suit premises and that the plaintiff is not allowing to remove and shift the said articles. Therefore, the defendant sought a direction to the plaintiff to allow the defendant to remove the above said articles from the suit premises. The application was opposed by the plaintiff contending that the premises is very much in the possession of the defendant and the present application is fled only to evade the payment of rents as well as the arrears payable by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the trial is in progress and it is coming up for cross- examination of P.W.2. A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant/revision petitioner shows that the suit claim is contested on various grounds including the jurisdiction of the Court. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant has not vacated the suit premises and it is still under the custody of the defendant. In the circumstances, as rightly observed by the Court below, the directions as sought by the defendant/revision petitioner cannot be issued without adjudicating the issue involved in the main suit. Hence, the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in dismissing the application. The discretion exercised by the Court below on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case warrants no interference by this court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 26.12.2011 KLP