THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :3185 of 2010 Date: 6.8.2010 Between: Vemulapati Pulla Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND G. Rama Subbarao .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P.Veera Reddy Counsel for the Respondent None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :3185 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 26.6.2010 in A.T.A. No.1 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereby he has confirmed order dated 14.12.2007 in I.A. No. 226 of 2007 in A.T.C. No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Officer under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant of the respondent. He has filed A.T.C. No.1 of 2007 for declaration that the transfer of land made by the respondent in favour of a third party is illegal and invalid and for setting aside the said transfer. Along with the said A.T.C., the petitioner field I.A. No.226 of 2007 for temporary injunction. The said application, after contest, was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Officer under the Act by order dated 14.12.2007. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the above mentioned appeal before the District Court, which, by its order dated 26.6.2010, dismissed the same confirming the order of the trial Court. A perusal of both the orders show that concurrent findings have been recorded to the effect that the petitioner has not proved his possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that during the pendency of the appeal in the District Court, the petitioner did not have injunction in his favour. In my opinion, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court will not re-appreciate the evidence nor arrive at a different conclusion unless appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is perverse. I do not find any such perversity in the orders. Accordingly, this is not a fit case for interference by this Court at this stage. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is permitted to move the Primary Court for expeditious disposal of the A.T.C. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, C.R.P.M.P. No. 423 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 6th August, 2010 pnb