THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5627 of 2008 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.211 of 2005 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilakuntla against the petitioner for injunction as regards the use of the suit schedule rastha. They have also filed I.A.No.641 of 2005 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the I.A., through order, dated 08.09.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.12 of 2006 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. The C.M.A. was dismissed on 22.09.2008. Hence, this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as regards the same subject matter, his client filed O.S.No.139 of 2004 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilakuntla against the respondents and an ex parte decree was passed by the trial Court. He contends that though the judgment and decree were filed as Exs.R1 and R2 in the I.A., the trial Court and the lower appellate Court did not appreciate the same. The I.A. filed by the respondents for the relief of temporary injunction was allowed. It was in respect of the use of a rastha. It is no doubt true that the petitioner filed Exs.R1 and R2 being the judgment and decree in O.S.No.139 of 2004. The trial Court took the same into account and on comparison found that it was in respect of a different part of the rastha. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings after undertaking extensive discussion. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Further, the suit itself can be directed to be disposed of, since its scope is very limited. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed, directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 07.12.2010. kdl