THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1919 of 2011 Dated:29.07.2011 Between: G.Vijay Kumar. …Petitioner and G.N.Aswartha Narayana, And others. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1919 of 2011 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Hindupur, in I.A.No.47 of 2011 in O.S.No.2 of 2006 dated 23.02.2011. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. He filed an application, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to restrain respondent Nos.1 to 5 from altering the physical features of the petition schedule property by granting temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. It is the case of the petitioner before the Court below that he had filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his share of property; respondent Nos.1 to 5 in collusion were trying to change the physical features of item No.1 of suit A schedule property; if the respondents were allowed to alter the physical features of the property in order to let out the same to the tenants, it would lead to multiplicity of litigation and, therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 5 should be restrained from altering the physical features of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. The fifth respondent filed counter affidavit which is adopted by the first respondent. It is their case that the third respondent is the absolute owner of half share in the petition schedule property under gift deed dated 04.05.2009 executed by his father; the third respondent accepted the gift and he was in joint possession of the petition schedule property, along with the fifth respondent; there were two other suits pending for the same property between the parties in O.S.No.2 of 2005; the building in question was constructed on pillars with RCC roofing; temporary walls were constructed in the ground and first floors; and, so as to repair the temporary wall which had got damaged and to divide the building into portions, internal alterations of the building were made with a view to obtain higher rents from the tenants. It is their case that the first respondent had relinquished all his rights to defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the plaintiff on 30.03.1964; and the petitioner and defendant Nos.2 and 3 had nothing to do with the first respondent from 30.03.1964 onwards. The Court below observed that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed the suit for partition, and separate possession of his 1/5th share in the properties in question; whatever alterations and improvements are made to the building by the respondents/defendants are subject to the result of the suit; if the petitioner/plaintiff succeeded in the suit he would be entitled for mesne profits for having let out the building by the respondents to a shoe mart; the petitioner had not made out a prima facie case nor was the balance of convenience in his favour to restrain the respondents from altering the petition schedule property; and, as such, he was not entitled to the equitable relief of temporary injunction. The suit for partition and separate possession, filed by the petitioner herein, is for 1/5th share of the suit schedule property. Even if the suit is decreed, the petitioner would be entitled only to 1/5th share, and not for the entire extent of the properties specified in the suit schedule. The Court below, in the order under revision, has made it clear that any alterations, improvements and letting out of the building by the respondents/defendants would be subject to the result of the suit, and that the petitioner would also be entitled for mesne profits if he succeeded in the suit to the extent of the building letting out by the respondents to the shoe mart. Since the petitioner’s interests are protected by the observations aforementioned, I see no reason to accede to the request that an injunction be granted pending disposal of the suit, more so, as this Court had, in its order in C.R.P.No.1933 of 2007 dated 15.07.2010, directed that the suit be disposed of within three months. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the Court below to hear and decide the suit with all expedition. This Court in C.R.P.No.1933 of 2007, dated 15.07.2010, directed that the suit be disposed of within three months. The Court below shall, therefore, dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the observations aforementioned, this revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs. ________________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 29.07.2011 vs