THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.4073 of 2010 ORDER This revision is directed against the order, dated 23.07.2010 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dismissing I.A.No.443 of 2010 in O.S.No.526 of 2009 filed under Order XIX Rule 1 CPC by the petitioner herein seeking to dismiss the suit by awarding costs. 2. Respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.526 of 2009 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant, his men and agents from interfering with its business in the suit schedule property. The petitioner states that as P.W.1 admitted in his cross- examination that the respondent vacated the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit, the cause in the suit no longer subsists and therefore, he filed the above said I.A. seeking to dismiss the suit with costs. The respondent filed counter stating that though he stopped the business, the suit schedule property is still in his possession. The trial Court holding that the dispute is still subsisting and if I.A., is allowed, it would amount to deciding the main case itself, dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED v. MACHADO BROTHERS[1] and another judgment of this Court in KOYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO v. PATCHAVA ANASUYA[2] and contended that as the suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from causing obstruction of business run by the respondent in the suit schedule property, from which the respondent had already vacated, the cause of action as arose in the suit does not survive and thus, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. A perusal of the record discloses that the trial of the suit commenced. P.W.1 in his evidence admitted that the respondent vacated the suit schedule property. The respondent stated in his counter-affidavit that though he stopped the business in the suit schedule property, still it is in his possession. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the I.A. by the order impugned. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case. Hence, I find no merit in this revision. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:01.10.2010 sj [1] AIR 2004 SC 2093 [2] 2009(5) ALT 718