HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 857 OF 2011 DATED 29TH NOVEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN Thirumalaraju Venkam Raju …….Petitioner and Bommisetty Kasi Viswanadham …… Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 857 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No. 371 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiﬀ, ﬁled the aforesaid suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule land. In the said suit, the revision petitioner/plaintiﬀ ﬁled I.A.No. 2988 of 2006 seeking temporary injunction. The petitioner/defendant contested the said application. The Court below by its order dated 26.2.2007 granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/defendant preferred an appeal in CMA.No. 6 of 2007 and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, by order under revision dated 24.07.2007 conﬁrmed the order of the trial Court. Hence, the present CRP is filed. Though the case was called in the morning session, there was no representation for the petitioner. It was accordingly passed over. Again in the afternoon session, when the case is called, there is also no representation for the petitioner. Hence, this Court has no option except to decide the matter on the basis of the material on record. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused the case file. As can be seen from the record, it is the case of the revision petitioner/defendant that the registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney executed by the owner of the plaint schedule land in favour of the revision petitioner was prior to the sale deed dated 2.12.2006 executed in favour of the respondent and therefore the sale deed alleged to have been executed by the vendor of the respondent is not a valid document in as much as the same is subsequent to the agreement of sale-cum- General Power of Attorney dated 30.11.2006 and also subsequent to the agreement of sale dated 1.12.2006 executed by the petitioner in favour of the third parties . On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent/plaintiﬀ has purchased the plaint schedule land under a registered sale deed dated 2.12.2006 for a valuable consideration and pursuant to the same, he has been in enjoyment and peaceful possession of the same. He further submitted that the revision petitioner/defendant has no right or title whatsoever to interfere with the peaceful possession of the respondent/plintiff. It is well settled principle of law that temporary injunction sought by the parties could be granted if they satisfy the three well-established principles, namely, (1) making out a prima facie case, (2) showing balance of convenience in their favour, and (3) on refusal of the injunction they would suﬀer irreparable loss. Granting an injunction is a matter of discretion and in its exercise the Court has to satisfy itself whether the respondent/plaintiﬀ has a triable case. Before invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to seek temporary injunction the respondent/plaintiﬀ would be bound to show that he had a legal right and that there was an invasion of that right. If we consider the case on hand on the touchstone of the aforesaid well settled principle of law, it may be noticed that both the Courts below concurrently and prima facie held that the respondent/plaintiﬀ had purchased the plaint schedule land under Ex.A.2-registered sale deed dated 2.12.2006 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, the petitioner/defendant did not ﬁle any document except photostat copies of Exs. B.1 to B.4 and he has not shown suﬃcient reason as to why the originals thereof have not been ﬁled before the Court below. As such, the petitioner/defendant failed to show prima facie that his legal right is infringed by grant of temporary injunction. Facts and circumstances, on the contrary, show that the respondent/plaintiﬀ had established prima facie his legal right for grant of temporary injunction. However, it is to be seen that the other submissions put forth by the petitioner as well as the respondent cannot be gone into at this stage. Keeping in mind that the very suit is pending adjudication before the Court below, it is open to them to put-forth all these arguments before the Court below when the suit reaches the stage of arguments. For the foregoing reasons, I do no see any illegality or inﬁrmity in the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 29th November, 2011. Msnro