IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THIS THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1953 OF 2010 Between: Kada Venkata Ramana S/o. Late Ramesh …. Petitioner AND Gonithina Nookaraju S/o. Late Balaramulu …. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1953 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner and the respondent are the close by related. The respondent is the maternal uncle as well as the brother-in-law of the petitioner. Petitioner filed O.S. No.475 of 2008 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the plaint schedule properties, against the respondent. He has also filed I.A. No.1497 of 2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for temporary injunction. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through its order dated 08-05-2009. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed CMA No.4 of 2009 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. The appeal was allowed on 15-03-2010. Hence, this revision. 2. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The dispute is in relation to an open site, admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.74 cents. The petitioner, on the one hand and the respondent on the other, claimed the same through the same source. The basis for the claim of the petitioner is that there was a partition between the respondent on the one hand and the mother of the petitioner on the other hand and that the property has fallen to the share of the mother of the petitioner. It is stated that the property was gifted to the petitioner by his mother through a document dated 27-02-2007. Reliance is placed upon an affidavit filed by the respondent herein in O.S. No.242 of 2006 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. 4. There is some dispute as to whether there existed any partition of the property at all. Though in the affidavit that was filed in O.S. No.242 of 2006, it was mentioned that such a partition took place, the respondent states that the affidavit was prepared by none other than the wife of the petitioner, who is said to be an advocate. Various aspects in this regard, need to be examined, at the trial of the suit. 5. The suit schedule property is an open land. This Court is of the view that a direction restraining both the parties from making any structures over the land, would protect the interests of the parties, during the pendency of the suit. 6. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the judgment and decree in CMA No.4 of 2009 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka is set aside. The order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court in I.A. No. 1497 of 2008 in O.S No.475 of 2008 is modified to the effect that neither the petitioner nor the respondent shall make any constructions over the suit schedule property or otherwise alter its nature, till the disposal of the suit. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as expressing any view, on the controversies involved in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J June 18, 2010. KTL