THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2897 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.04.2009 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in C.M.A.No.144 of 2008. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.2136 of 2007 for injunction simplicitor in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. It was stated that originally P.Pentaiah, P.Kistaiah, P.Mallaiah and Rangaiah were the owners of the suit schedule land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas situated in Survey No.140 of Chengicharla Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said four persons executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt.C.M.Eashwaramma, who in turn executed a registered sale deed in favour of Smt.K.V.Durga Kiran on 19.01.1991. The said Smt.K.V.Durga Kiran executed a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of the first respondent herein on 10.03.2007 and since then he is in possession of the suit land. The second respondent is an employee of the Mandal Revenue Office, Ghatkesar. By taking undue advantage of his position in the Mandal Revenue Office, he is in the habit of knocking away the lands of poor people. He appears to be involved in cheating cases. The second respondent and the petitioner herein without any authority tried to interfere with the possession of the first respondent over the suit land on 24.07.2007, but they could not succeed. On 28.07.2007, they revived their attempts to dispossess the first respondent herein. Hence, he filed I.A.No.2845 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C for temporary injunction. The trial Court, after considering the entire material available on record, by order dated 24.06.2008, granted temporary injunction in favour of the first respondent herein restraining the second respondent and the petitioner herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred the C.M.A. The respondents herein contested the matter by filing counter denying the above said four persons as the original owners of the schedule land, but they admitted with regard to the employment of the second respondent in the office of the Mandal Revenue Office, Ghatkesar, knocking away the lands of the poor people by the second respondent by taking undue advantage of his position in the Office, and his involvement in cheating cases. It was also admitted that on 24.07.2007 and 28.07.2007 they tried to interfere with the possession of the first respondent. It was further stated that Kistaiah @ P.Krishna is the absolute owner and possessor of Acs.5.00 guntas of land situated in the suit village; that the said Kistaiah executed a registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of the first respondent on 19.10.2007 in respect of Acs.3.00 guntas of land and the same has been registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ghatkesar; that after purchase of the suit schedule land by the first respondent, he alienated the same to Ranga Sukanya under registered sale deed dated 01.02.2002 and since then she has been in continuous possession over the suit schedule land without any interruption and the petitioner is not at all in possession of the suit land. The lower appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel on either side and re-analysing the entire material on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the order dated 24.06.2008 passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the first respondent herein proved prima facie case that he is in lawful possession over the petition schedule property, and also the other ingredients, which are required to be satisfied for grant of temporary injunction in his favour. It was further held that if injunction is not granted irreparable loss would be caused to the first respondent herein. In view of the same, the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below granting temporary injunction in favour of the first respondent herein, are unassailable and the same do not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs. N.V.RAMANA, J Date: 13.11.2009 va