IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSANDAND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2702 OF 2010 Between: Tipparthi Ravindra Chary and another …Petitioner A n d Tipparthi Venkat Ramana Chary and two others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2702 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.11.2009 in C.M.A.No.19 of 2009, on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Karimnagar, wherein the appeal filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein was allowed, setting aside the order dated 19.08.2009 in I.A.No.742 of 2009 in O.S.No.240 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the drainage pipeline going through the plaintiffs’ site. According to the plaintiffs, they are the absolute owners and in possession of the house bearing No.4-40 situate in Asifnagar village of Karimnagar Mandal and District. The petitioners/defendants are the agnates of the respondents/plaintiffs and their house is situate adjacent to the plaintiffs’ house. The underground drainage pipeline from the plaintiffs’ house is passing through the site of the defendants on the northern side and is connected to the panchayat drainage canal. The pipelines were laid one year back and the drainage water of the plaintiffs was passing through said pipeline for the last one year with the consent of the defendants. As the defendants were trying to encroach upon the site of the plaintiffs while re- constructing their house, the plaintiffs resisted the same. The defendants, therefore, bore grudge against the plaintiffs and attempted to remove the pipeline. In the panchayat held before the village elders on 14.06.2009, a mutual understanding was arrived at, but subsequently D-1 got issued a notice dated 08.07.2009 denying the agreement. On 14.07.2009, the defendants demanded the plaintiffs to remove the underground pipeline. Hence, the suit for injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.742 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for a temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit. The defendants filed a counter opposing the same and contending that there was no mutual understanding between the parties on 14.06.2009 as alleged and the said document is fabricated and the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit and there is no prima facie case or balance of convenience for grant of any temporary injunction, as the plaintiffs have no right to take any pipeline through the site of the defendants. 4. During enquiry before the trial Court, Exs.P-1 to P- 5 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants. 5. On a consideration of the material available on record, the learned Junior Civil Judge, by the impugned order dated 19.08.2009, dismissed the said application, holding that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case nor balance of convenience and the alleged agreement dated 14.06.2009 has never seen the light of the day. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed appeal in C.M.A.No.19 of 2009 and by the impugned order dated 07.11.2009, the learned District Judge allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court, refusing to grant temporary injunction. Hence, the present civil revision petition by the defendants. 6. Admittedly, the plaintiffs and defendants are agnates and having properties adjacent to each other. Even according to the plaintiffs, the disputed drainage pipeline underneath the site of the defendants was laid only one year prior to filing of the suit for the purpose of connecting to the panchayat drainage canal. It is, therefore, not a case where the pipeline has been in existence since a long time and the plaintiffs have acquired any right of easement regarding the same. The plaintiffs have, therefore, no right under law to have the drainage pipeline through the adjacent site of the defendants. To get over the same, the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants agreed for laying of the said pipeline and a mutual understanding was arrived at in the presence of elders and the same was also reduced to writing on 14.06.2009. The trial Court observed that the said document has not been produced before the Court, though the defendants have alleged that the said agreement was never entered into and the said document is forged and fabricated. The appellate Court also observed that the plaintiffs have failed to produce the original agreement before the Court. The appellate Court proceeded on the basis of the photographs Ex.P-5 which showed the existence of a pipeline running through the defendants’ site and connecting to the gram panchayat drainage channel. Even assuming for a moment that the defendants permitted the plaintiffs to lay the pipeline, such permission, which is in the nature of a licence, does not confer any right on the plaintiffs to have a drainage pipeline from their house to the panchayat drainage canal running through the defendants’ site. Such licence is always irrevocable. Simply because, the pipeline is shown to be existing, which existence, even according to the plaintiffs is under a licence, does not confer any right to have such a pipeline through the defendants site for ever. 7. Before seeking the relief of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the plaintiffs have to necessarily establish the existence of a prima facie case in their favour. In the absence of any such prima facie case, any amount of balance of convenience or irreparable loss does not justify the grant of the said relief of temporary injunction. The plaintiffs have to necessarily establish that prima facie he is entitled to seek injunction which is sine qua non for grant of the said relief. In the present case, as the plaintiffs admittedly have no other right to take the drainage pipeline through the site of the defendants and even according to the plaintiffs, they were only permitted by the defendants, that too about one year prior to filing of the suit, to lay the pipeline, which permission is always revocable and when the plaintiffs have failed to produce the document under which the mutual understanding is said to have been entered in spite of denial of the same by the defendants, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have got any prima facie case in their favour. In the absence of such prima facie case, the mere existence of pipeline, which is said to have been disclosed by the photographs Ex.P-5, does not justify the grant of temporary injunction. The appellate Court has clearly erred in granting the relief merely basing on the photographs Ex.P-5. 8. The impugned order, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the trial Court is, therefore, held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, C.M.A.No.19 of 2009 stands dismissed and the order dated 19.08.2009 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.742 of 2009, dismissing the said application, stands confirmed. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th October, 2011 Lrkm.