HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 3438 OF 2010 Friday, the Twentieth day of August, Two Thousand and Ten Between V.B. Ramgopal Petitioner AND V.P. Srinivas Rao and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 26.6.2010 passed in C.M.A. No. 188 of 2009 by the learned II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, modifying the order dated 29.9.2009 made in I.A. No. 632 of 2009 in O.S. 815 of 2009 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confining the temporary injunction to the extent of the portion occupied by the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein filed the above suit seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents from interfering with the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed IA No. 632 of 2009 seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. It is his case he is the joint owner and possessor of the house property bearing No. 3-4-453 and 454, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, comprising of ground and first floor totally admeasuring 763 Sq. yards. Out of the same, a portion of the property bearing No.3-4-453, which is ‘A’ schedule property, is in exclusive possession of the petitioner and his family members and the ‘B’ schedule property i.e., entire extent of land and building comprising ground and first floor bearing Municipal No.3-4-453 and 454, including ‘A’ schedule property, is the joint family property of the respondents 1 to 3, purchased by the common ancestor of the parties in the name of Vemula Prem Das, father of the respondents 1 to 3. It is the case of the petitioner that in and around the year 1972, father of the petitioner occupied ‘A’ schedule property and after his death in the year 1989, the petitioner and his family members are continuing their possession over the said property. It is having separate electricity connection. While so, on 3.6.2009, some persons approached the petitioner and informed that they have purchased the property and he has to vacate the ‘A’ schedule premises, otherwise, they would demolish the same. Hence he filed the suit. The relationship between the parties and the possession of the petitioner over two rooms on the first floor is admitted. It is stated that ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties are one and the same. It is their case that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of the father of respondents 1 to 3 and the possession of the petitioner is permissive one. It is stated that the respondents 1 to 3 sold the property to the respondent No.4 and, therefore, the petitioner has no right whatsoever. The trial court, by order dated 29.9.2009 has allowed the petition granting temporary injunction against the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents 1 to 4 herein preferred an appeal in CMA No. 188 of 2009 and the learned II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by the judgment and decree impugned in this Civil Revision Petition, has allowed the appeal partly modifying the ad interim injunction granted by the trial court to the extent of the portion over which he is in possession till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Along with the Revision Petition, the petitioner also filed CRP MP No. 4586 of 2010 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Today, when the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for hearing on admission, it is submitted by the learned counsel for he respondents herein that the respondents have filed an affidavit undertaking not to demolish the two rooms on the first floor, which are in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner herein. Recording the said averment made in the affidavit by the fourth respondent, no further orders need be passed. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. It is not in dispute that a portion of the suit schedule property is demolished. It is also not in dispute that the parties to the suit are related. In this factual background, the court below shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari August 20, 2010 MAS