HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3057 of 2011 Date: August 9, 2011 Between: Kalla Mallaiah, S/o.Narsaiah, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Narayanapuram Village, Bachannapet Mandal, Warangal District and others … Petitioners And Komirishetty Srinivas Rao, S/o.Yadagiri, aged about 30 years, Occ:business, R/o.H.No.3-156/A, Gatkesar Village and Mandal … Respondent Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved of the order dated 10.10.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, confirming the order dated 30.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.456 of 2007 in O.S.No.184 of 2007 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon. Petitioners herein are defendants 2 to 7 in the aforesaid suit and respondent is the plaintiff. The dispute is with regard to the land admeasuring Ac.3.10 guntas covered by Sy.No.807/A of Pochannapet village. In the suit, respondent-plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.456 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court allowed the same vide order dated 30.11.2009. As against the same, petitioners filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.1 of 2010 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, which was dismissed by order dated 10.12.2010. Hence, this civil revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that the trial Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff without assigning valid reasons and the first appellate Court erred in declining to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court granting injunction. I have carefully perused the order passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. In this case, it is not in dispute that the suit schedule property originally stood patta in the name of Sri Kanuganti Balaiah. Respondent-plaintiff claims purchase from the said Sri K.Balaiah vide registered sale deed dated 22.02.2007. Though the petitioners have also set up a claim of purchase from the above said person, it appears, no documentary evidence was filed in support thereof. Having considered the evidence on record in detail, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that prima facie respondent-plaintiff has established possession and granted injunction in his favour. The first appellate Court, by recording valid reasons, has concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners by order dated 10.12.2010. As much as the claim of the respondent-plaintiff that he has purchased the suit schedule property is supported by documentary evidence, viz., registered sale deed dated 22.02.2007 and as the claim of the petitioners is not evidenced by any documentary evidence, the trial Court granted injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff by order dated 30.11.2009. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the trial Court, as confirmed by the first appellate Court by order dated 10.12.2010. Civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 9, 2011 MRR