THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1397, 1400 and 1401 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: All these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.269, 275 and 272 of 2009 respectively on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The said suits are filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for injunction simplicitor. Pending the suits, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.Nos.412, 432 and 431 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to grant temporary injunction. Before the trial Court, the parties have filed documentary evidence. The trial Court having considered the documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the petitioners/plaintiffs could not establish their possession for grant of interim injunction and accordingly, dismissed the said I.A.s by common order, dated 29.06.2009. As against the same, the petitioners carried the matter in C.M.A.Nos.64, 71 and 70 of 2009 before the lower appellate Court. The learned I-Additional District Judge, Warangal, also dismissed the CMAs by the impugned common order. In these Civil Revision Petitions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the lower appellate Court has not considered additional documentary evidence filed before it. On the other hand, Sri S.Sri Ram, learned counsel for the respondents contends that in view of the concurrent finding of fact, as the matters are coming up for trial, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned common order. I have perused the orders of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. The trial Court in detail has considered the prima facie case of the petitioners and arrived at the conclusion that they could not establish their possession as on the date of filing of the suits. Even the lower appellate Court although did not discuss the documents, which were filed by way of additional evidence, clearly held that the petitioners could not establish their possession for grant of temporary injunction. Inasmuch as the suits are of 2009 and as it is stated that the trial Court rejected I.A.Nos.412, 432 and 431 of 2009 as early as on 29.06.2009 and since then, there is no interim order in favour of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned common order, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, as it is stated that the pleadings are complete and the suits are coming up for framing of issues, I direct the trial Court to dispose of the aforesaid suits as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th JULY, 2011. kvni