THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5621 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Common Judgment dated 12.10.2007 made in C.M.A.No.27 of 2005 and A.T.A. No.5 of 2005, on the file of the District Judge, Ongole in so far allowing the C.M.A. is concerned. Heard both sides and perused the documents filed in support of their contentions. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff, and the petitioner and second respondent herein are defendants, in the suit. Plaintiff filed Original Suit No.206 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ongole for grant of permanent injunction in respect of Ac.3.12 cents of land, and made I.A. No.530 of 2005 therein for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court, by order dated 27.08.2005, dismissed the I.A. On appeal, the appellate court allowed the C.M.A. granting temporary injunction. For granting temporary injunction, the well established principles are prima facie title, balance of convenience and irreparable loss if injunction is not granted. The first ingredient with regard to the prima facie title is a sine qua non for grant of temporary injunction. Thereafter, the party who comes to the Court for grant of temporary injunction must establish that he was in possession of the property. The trial Court dismissed the application for grant of temporary injunction on the ground that possession has not been established and therefore, the question of causing irreparable injury if injunction is not granted in favour of the petitioner, does not arise. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the said decree and order of the trial Court and granted temporary injunction. In the trial Court, the plaintiff filed Exs.A.1 to A.11. Ex.A.1 and A.2 are the wills said to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff. At best, they can show about the title of the parties. Exs.A.3 to A.6, A9 and A.10 are the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued by the revenue authorities. It is not in dispute that one Rangamma is the original owner of the property, who said to have purchased the property under Ex.A.8-sale deed. During pendency of the revision, admittedly, the title deeds and pattadar pass books issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer are set aside by the Joint Collector. Thereafter, it seems that, name of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue records in pursuance of the orders of the Joint Collector. No doubt, the first respondent obtained status quo orders from this Court against the orders of Joint Collector when a revision petition is filed against the orders of the Joint Collector. Therefore, at this stage, prima facie, there is no document filed by the first respondent herein to show about the prima facie possession. No doubt, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the ingredient to be considered is the possession of the party as on the date of filing of the suit. The judgments of both the courts below are silent with regard to the possession of the party as to who is in possession of the property. The necessary entries in the pattadar passbooks and the original title deeds issued by the M.R.O. can be taken into consideration for proving the prima facie possession. That aspect of the case has not been considered by both the Courts below. Therefore, it is a fit case where the matter can be remanded to the trial Court for considering those aspects with regard to the well established principles of grant or refusal of injunction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to consider the case afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties. Uninfluenced by any observation, the trial Court shall dispose of the injunction petition in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ K.C.Bhanu,J Dated: 18.06.2010 Bud THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5621 of 2008 DATED:18.06.2010