THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P.No.6354 of 2006 Date: 24.06.2010 Between: Latchubothu Surappadu and 7 others … Petitioners AND Chilaka Mahalaxmi and 4 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P. No.6354 of 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 30.08.2006 in C.M.A.No.88 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, reversing the order dated 05.09.2002 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in I.A.No.145 of 2002 in O.S.No.71 of 2002. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.71 of 2002 which was filed for a perpetual injunction. By way of I.A.No.145 of 2002 the petitioners herein sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondents therein from entering into or interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land. The trial Court by order dated 05.09.2002 granted the interim injunction as sought. Aggrieved thereby the defendants in the suit, being the respondents in I.A.No.145 of 2002 in O.S.No.71 of 2002, filed C.M.A.No.88 of 2004 before the lower appellate Court. By order dated 30.08.2006, the lower appellate Court set aside the injunction granted by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiffs in the suit filed the present C.R.P. By order dated 14.12.2006 this Court granted interim suspension of the order passed by the lower appellate Court, thereby reviving the injunction granted by the trial Court. 3. Perusal of the order passed by the trial Court reveals that the trial Court relied upon the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in support of their claim of possession over the petition schedule land. The trial Court pointed out that Ex.A.1- the certified copy of the Adangal Pahani issued by the Village Administrative Officer was countersigned by the Mandal Revenue Officer and therefore constituted sufficient evidence to support the plea of the plaintiffs that they were in possession of the plaint schedule land. Surprisingly, the lower appellate Court relying upon third party affidavits disbelieved Ex.A.1 and reversed the cogent and well- reasoned order of the trial Court. The order passed by the lower appellate Court is therefore unsustainable on facts and in law. The lower appellate Court ought to have examined the three necessary ingredients for grant of an injunction in the proper perspective, which it failed to do. 4. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 30.08.2006 in C.M.A.No.88 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam and confirming the order in I.A.No.145 of 2002 in O.S.No.71 of 2002 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The injunction granted by the trial Court shall therefore continue to be in operation pending disposal of the suit. No costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 24.06.2010 Isn