HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5377 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22/07/2009 passed in C.M.A.No.25 of 2008 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. C.M.A.No.25 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners herein aggrieved by the order dated 26/08/2008 in I.A.No.955 of 2008 in O.S.No.288 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, whereby the petitioner/plaintiff was granted temporary injunction. O.S.No.288 of 2008 was filed by the respondent herein seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The respondent also filed I.A.No.955 of 2008 in O.S.No.288 of 2008 seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land i.e., agricultural land in Sy.No.337 admeasuring Ac.1-30 gts. at Nadipally Shivar, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. On 26/08/2008, the said IA was ordered. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents/defendants therein filed C.M.A.No.25 of 2008. By order dated 22/07/2009, the CMA was dismissed holding that the respondent/plaintiff made out a prima-facie case. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants in the CMA, who are the defendants in the suit, filed the present revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the order passed in the CMA is erroneous and illegal, and under the guise of the interim order, the respondent is trying to interfere with the possession of the land of the revision petitioners situated in Sy.No.339 without any justification and which fact was overlooked by the lower appellate Court. Further, the land in Sy.No.337 over which the respondent sought for an injunction was acquired by the Government and established APSEB sub-station and there is no land available in Sy.No.337 and that the sale deed relied upon by the respondent to claim a right over the suit schedule land is bogus and concocted and it does not confer any title on the respondent which fact was also overlooked by the first appellate Court. It is also contended that before both the Courts below since the respondent failed to prove the prima- facie case and the balance of convenience in his favour, no interim injunction could have been granted. But in the instant case, the principles enunciated in the matter of injunction, where it is for the petitioner to prove the prima-facie case and balance of convenience in his favour for the purpose of granting an interim injunction, were not proved by the respondent herein. Even then, the Court below had granted an interim injunction in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order in the CRP made by the first appellate Court in C.M.A.No.25 of 2008 dated 22/07/2009 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 26/08/2008 in I.A.No.955 of 2008 in O.S.No.288 of 2008 needs to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the orders passed by both the Courts below are sustainable and they do not require any interference. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, it is to be seen as to whether this Court needs to interfere with the impugned order. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that he is the owner and possessor of the schedule land having purchased the same from one Balla Pedda Ramulu under a registered sale deed bearing No.105/2007 dated 16/10/2007 and ever since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the land. On his application, the Tahsildar, Dichpally, mutated the land in his name in revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title book. He got surveyed the schedule land and boundary stones were fixed for it and he raised fencing around the land. While so, the petitioners 1 and 2 herein/defendants filed O.S.No.239 of 2008 against the respondent/plaintiff in respect of land of an extent of Ac.3.27 gts. in Sy.No.339 (New Sy.No.339/A) and another extent of Ac.3.13 gts. i.e., in the same survey number situated at Nadipally Shivar of Dichpally Mandal and obtained an order of temporary injunction on 20/07/2008. The petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 and their men came to the schedule land and tried to interfere with the possession of the respondent/plaintiff by removing the fencing, but the respondent/plaintiff resisted their attempts with the help of neighbours. The petitioners/defendants while leaving threatened the respondent and said that they would come again. Therefore, he filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 in I.A.No.955 of 2008 seeking grant of temporary injunction against the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land of Ac.1.30 gts. in Sy.No.337 as shown within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the petition. On behalf of the petitioners/defendants a counter was filed alleging that they are not aware of the alleged purchase of the land by the respondent/plaintiff under the sale deed; that the order of Tahsildar mutating the land in favour of the respondent/plaintiff is not correct. The vendor of the respondent/plaintiff has no title over the schedule land and so he could not pass on valid title to the respondent/plaintiff. They also denied the title and possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the schedule land. It is also alleged that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit falsely only as a counter-blast to the suit filed by them. They denied that on 20/07/2008 taking advantage of the order of injunction granted in the suit filed by them, they tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the schedule land. It is also alleged that since the respondent/plaintiff tried to grab their land, they were constrained to file the suit. Considering these facts, by order dated 26/08/2008 the trial Court granted the interim injunction in I.A.No.955 of 2008 in O.S.No.288 of 2008 restraining the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent/plaintiff over the petition schedule land. In case of dispute regarding the boundary line between the lands in Sy.No.337 and 339, parties are at liberty to take steps for demarcation. The trial Court had passed an elaborate order considering all the facts and observed that the properties described under the schedule in O.S.No.239 of 2008 and in O.S.No.288 of 2008 were situated in different survey numbers and they were situated in Sy.Nos.339 and 337. Since the survey numbers were different, it is easy for adjudication and demarcation of the boundaries between the lands in Sy.Nos.337 and 339 and found that the defendants need not apprehend that their property in Sy.No.339 or 339/A may be grabbed or encroached by the plaintiff under the guise of the interim injunction. The trial Court verified the registered sale deed in document No.105 of 207 dated 16/10/2007, the mutation proceedings of MRO, Dichpally, showing the prima-facie title over the suit schedule property. The certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-2008 shows the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property on the date of suit. Therefore, the trial Court found that the respondent/plaintiff had shown prima-facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. It also found that in the suit schedule land it was described that the land of vendor was situated on its Northern side. In the location of map, the suit schedule property was shown in triangle shape in red colour and Northern boundary was shown as the land in Sy.No.339. Since the defendants were already granted temporary injunction in O.S.No.239 of 2008 with regard to the property in Sy.No.339 (new Sy.No.339/A), they may take advantage of the said orders violating or extending their rights beyond the boundary line demarcating the lands in Sy.Nos.339 and 337. Therefore, the trial Court felt that the plaintiff had shown that he would suffer irreparable injury if he was not granted the relief of injunction. Having considered the merits of the case and the evidence on record, particularly, the registered sale deed in document No.105/07 dated 16/10/2007 and the mutation proceedings of the MRO, Dichpally, and also the certified copy of the pahani for the year 2007-2008 and further both the properties which are the subject matter in O.S.No.239 of 2008 filed by the plaintiff are different from each other and located in different survey numbers and different places, the trial Court granted the temporary injunction through its order dated 26/08/2008. In appeal filed by the petitioners/defendants in O.S.No.288 of 2008 the first appellate Court while framing the issues, as to whether the respondent/plaintiff made out prima-facie case and the balance of convenience in his favour and if so he is entitled for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit and to what relief, held that the learned Junior Civil Judge passed the injunction order after considering the material on record in right perspective and came to the right conclusion that the plaintiff has made out prima- facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour and so there is no need to interfere with the order. In the process of consideration, the first appellate Court found that undisputedly the petitioners/defendants filed O.S.No.239 of 2008 against the respondent/plaintiff in respect of their land of Ac.3.27 gts. in Sy.No.339 (new No.339/A) and obtained the order of temporary injunction against him. It is the allegation of the respondent/plaintiff that the petitioners/defendants taking advantage of that order were trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the land. Inasmuch as the respondent/plaintiff established his prima-facie title and possession over the schedule land, therefore, it has to be held that there is prima-facie case in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff who obtained the order of injunction against the petitioners/defendants may interfere with the possession of the petitioners/defendants of the schedule land. So, if the temporary injunction is granted against the petitioners/defendants, they are not put to any loss for admittedly, they do not have any claim over the suit schedule land. On the other hand, if the injunction is not granted and if there is interference by the petitioners/defendants, the respondent/plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and that the first appellate Court found that the balance of convenience was in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Having observed the same, while upholding the order passed by the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Both the Courts i.e., trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have considered the facts of the case with reference to the available records and found that the respondent herein who is the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A.No.955 of 2008 in O.S.No.288 of 2008 proved his case by complying the conditions of making out a prima-facie case and balance of convenience for granting the interim injunction pending the suit which was upheld by the first appellate Court in the CMA on re-appreciation of the record available. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 03rd June, 2010 SKM