THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.1389 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.106 of 2008 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction. It was pleaded that the petitioner financed the respondents for purchase of a vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing No.AP-37-Y-0944, and it was seized on 08-01-2008 for non-payment of installments. The petitioner complains that the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the vehicle. It also filed I.A.No.377 of 2008, under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., on 21-08-2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.8 of 2008 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku. The C.M.A was dismissed, on 24-12-2008. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Chaparla Sita Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner. The trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have discussed the matter extensively, though the matter before them was, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Both the parties have adduced fairly good volume of evidence. The respondents asserted that they were paying installments regularly, and they filed Ex.R-4, a clearance certificate. Though it is alleged by the petitioner that it was fabricated, the same needs to be examined at the stage of trial. The record discloses that the petitioner tried its level best to highhandedly seize the vehicle by taking the help of Police, and thereafter approached the criminal Court. The lower Appellate Court, in fact, has deprecated the highhanded action on the part of the petitioner. It is a matter of record that criminal complaints were filed against the petitioner for committing the theft of the vehicle. Allegations are also to the effect that the petitioner had fabricated the record. It must not be forgotten that the relief of temporary injunction is discretionary, and can be granted only when prima facie case and balance of convenience are established. The petitioner does not dispute that the respondents are the registered owners of the vehicle, and they are entitled to detain the possession of the vehicle. It is not even asserted that the petitioner had secured the possession of the vehicle, through process known to law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and law. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.07-08-2009. KO