IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1897 OF 2010 Between : Mohd.Jalal and others. .... PETITIONERS A N D Mohd.Noorul Haq …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1897 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order and decree, dated 18.03.2010, in C.M.A.No.34 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Warangal, whereunder and whereby, the order, dated 09.04.2009 in I.A.No.206 of 2009 in O.S.No.131 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, was set aside and temporary injunction was granted as prayed for till disposal of the suit. 2. Original Suit No.131 of 2009 was filed by the respondent herein /plaintiff for perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners/defendants from enjoying the Wakf property. The respondent herein is the owner of the house bearing No.13-8-17, consisting of one room and open land. Through the said house, there is a passage of 4 x 33 feet connecting to the main road leading from Gopalaswamy temple to Papaiahpet Chaman. The said lane is the subject matter of the suit. During the pendency of the said suit the respondent herein filed an interlocutory application No.206 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the interlocutory application vacating the exparte temporary injunction grante0d on 10.02.2009. On appeal, the first appellate Court granted injunction pending disposal of the suit. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. The dispute is with regard to the lane admeasuring 4 x 33 feet in width, which is situated on the western side of the plaint schedule property. The case of the respondent is that he purchased the schedule property in the year 2008 from its owner under Ex.P.2 certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, dated 27.10.2008, which shows that there is a lane to go to the plaint schedule premises. The vendor of the respondent got the title under the original of Ex.P.3, having purchased the same in the year 2001, whereunder the western boundary of the property was shown as some others land. Though this is a suit for injunction simplictor, the question of incidental title has to be gone into. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no such lane existing, and if really there is a lane it should have been reflected in the respondent’s vendor’s document and it is a property belonging to Wakf and to show that the property belongs to him, no document is filed by the respondent and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. No doubt, the respondent has not filed any document to show about his title. At the same time, since it is the respondent who has come to the Court seeking for the relief of grant of injunction, which is an equitable remedy, he has to establish his prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury if it is not granted. 6. Coming to the prima facie case, the respondent placed reliance on Exs.P.2 and P.3. In Ex.P.2, the western boundary was shown as 4 x 33 feet wide lane and the respondent has not specifically mentioned in Ex.P.3 which is the link document about the existence of the lane. Though it is not specifically mentioned in the schedule of the property, the plan appended to Ex.P.3 would clearly go to show that there was a lane to the extent of 4 x 33 feet for going to the plaint schedule property. Therefore, at this stage, if the measurements with regard to the plaint schedule property including the disputed lane are taken into consideration, it is tallying with the total extent purchased by the respondent. Therefore he has shown the prima facie case to the property. 7. Coming to the ingress and egress, the proceedings of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, dated 06.01.2009 and Exs.P.4 and P.5 photographs would clearly go to show that this passage was in existence for ingress and egress to the respondent’s land. 8. Coming to the balance of convenience, it is the specific case of the respondent that he would be deprived of the only entrance to go to his property through plaint schedule passage and without which he cannot enjoy the property. This aspect of the case appears to be correct, as respondent did not file any document to show that there is an alternative passage available to the petitioners for ingress and egress to the property. If the petitioners denied the use of passage, it would cause irreparable hardship, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, all the three requirements are proved by the respondent, for grant of temporary injunction. 9. The appellate Court rightly considered these aspects and accordingly granted temporary injunction. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving open all remedies available to the petitioners under law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH 14, 2011 YVL