HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.398 of 2011 Date : 25.02.2011 Between : Modegunta Ramachandraiah & others. …..Petitioners And Soora Srinivasulu Reddy. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.398 of 2011 ORDER : This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order, dated 30.11.2010, passed in C.M.A.No.13 of 2009 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Nellore, confirming the order, dated 19.01.2009, passed by the I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.1207 of 2008 in O.S.No.1345 of 2008. Petitioners are plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.1345 of 2008, which was filed for injunction simplicitor. In the said suit, I.A.No.1207 of 2008 is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, by the petitioners herein, for grant of Ad Interim Injunction. The Trial Court initially granted Ad Interim Injunction, but after filing of counter and after going through the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the petitioners have failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour, for grant of injunction. Although the petitioners have filed appeal in C.M.A.No.13 of 2009, the said C.M.A. is also dismissed as early as on 30th of November 2010, by recording a finding that there is material to show that the respondent was in possession of suit schedule property, but not the petitioners. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the suit schedule property was ancestral property, the fact remains that the sale deed was in the name of Sanjeevaiah and it is the case of respondent that the property is the self-acquired property of Sanjeevaiah, from whom the respondent claims to have purchased. Further, in view of the documentary evidence on record in Exs.R-1 to R-7, and in the absence of any other evidence to show that the petitioners are in possession of property, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the trial Court, as confirmed by the appellate Court, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But, as much as the suit is of the year 2008, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this revision petition, with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to above observations, this revision petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th February 2011 ajr