THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1583 OF 2010 Dated 23rd July, 2010 Between: Sakam Venkata Subba Reddy …. Petitioner And Reddam Prudvi Narayana Reddy And another …. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Veera Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri Challa Sivasankar The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 24.07.2009 in CMA No.10 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, whereby he has confirmed order dated 22.08.2006 in I.A.No.497 of 2005 in O.S.No.145 of 2005 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Allagadda. I have heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Challa Sivasankar, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner herein filed the abovementioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25.04.1983 stated to have been executed by the father of respondent No.1. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.497 of 2005 for temporary injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the agreement of sale, the possession of the said property was delivered to him and that a pattadar passbook was issued to him by the Revenue authorities. It is his further case that he has been raising agricultural crops in the suit schedule property and that after the death of the father of respondent No.1, the petitioner requested the wife of the deceased vendor for execution of the regular sale deed and that she died without executing the sale deed. That respondent No.1, who succeeded to the property on the death of his parents, also failed to execute the sale deed and therefore, the petitioner filed the abovementioned suit. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, he has denied execution of the agreement of sale by his father. He has also denied delivery of possession in favour of the petitioner. He has pleaded that he has sold the property to respondent No.2 under registered sale deed dated 19.08.2004 and delivered possession of the property to her. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the petitioner was not in possession of the property and have accordingly declined to grant the relief of temporary injunction. At no point of time, the petitioner had injunction in his favour. In my opinion, having regard to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings of fact in this Civil Revision Petition. As such, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2005, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the same within a period of six (6) months. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, CRPMP No.2122 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd July, 2010 vrn