HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4354 & 4355 OF 2011 DATE:09-12-2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4354 OF 2011 BETWEEN Boppana Basava Visweswara Rao …Petitioner AND Kodali Lakshmi Nancharamma and others …Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4355 OF 2011 BETWEEN Boppana Basava Visweswara Rao …Petitioner AND Kodali Lakshmi Nancharamma and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4354 & 4355 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are arising out of the same proceedings and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. First defendant filed these two revisions against the orders of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in allowing C.M.A.Nos.14 of 2009 and 5 of 2010 dated 24.8.2011 which were filed against the orders in I.A.Nos.1083 of 2008 and 878 of 2008 in O.S.No.169 of 2008 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. Plaintiff-first respondent herein instituted the above suit for permanent injunction. Pending the suit, she filed I.A.No.878 of 2008 under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction and obtained ad interim injunction against the defendants. Thereafter the first defendant-petitioner in these revisions filed I.A.No.1083 of 2008 to vacate the interim injunction stating that his father-Koteswara Rao used to cultivate the suit schedule land of Ac.1.83 cents of plaintiff along with his own land situated at Bhatlapenumarru on lease till the year 2000-2001 and as he became old, he could not cultivate the land and therefore, he (first defendant) obliged to cultivate the lands personally. The plaintiff and her husband offered to lease out the suit land to him and he accepted the same and according to the mutual understanding, he agreed to pay total rental of 19 bags of paddy per annum for the entire suit land and he took possession of the said land in June 2001 and since then, he has been continuing as tenant till the filing of the suit. He paid Rs.6,450/- to the husband of the plaintiff towards rent for the year 2001-2002 on 10.1.2002, who passed a receipt on even date in his favour. Later he filed a suit in O.S.No.49 of 2002 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada against the husband of the plaintiff and others for recovery of Rs.32,13,197/- and the same is pending. Due to the said dispute, the present suit is instituted by the plaintiff and obtained injunction. The trial Court after considering rival contentions allowed I.A.No.1083 of 2008 and consequently dismissed I.A.No.878 of 2008. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiff carried the matter in appeal in C.M.A.Nos.14 of 2009 and 5 of 2010 respectively. The lower appellate Court by the impugned order allowed both the appeals setting aside the orders of trial Court and dismissed I.A.No.1083 of 2008 and allowed I.A.No. 878 of 2008 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for first respondent and perused the material available on record. The lower appellate Court took into consideration Exs.P.1 to P.8, P.11 to P.13 and Exs.X.2 to X.4. Exs.P.1 to P.4 are the cist receipts and Ex.P.11 is the pattadar pass book. According to first defendant-petitioner herein, he was paying cist to the Government in respect of the suit schedule land from out of the rental amounts payable to the plaintiff and that the pattadar pass book was also handed over to him by the husband of the plaintiff for getting fertilizers or pesticides etc., from the Government. Exs.P.6 to P.8 are cane growers register copy and cane supply pass books. It was observed that under Ex.P.7-cane grower’s register copy, the name of first defendant-petitioner herein was mentioned and the survey numbers of the suit land are referred against his name, but there is no basis for the said documents and the first defendant cannot be considered to be a cane grower as per the definition under 2(c) of the A.P. Sugarcane Act, 1961. Unless there is an agreement between the factory and cane grower i.e. the owner of the land, he cannot be termed as a cane grower. When the plaintiff is the owner of the property and entire cist receipts stand in her name and pattadar pass books were also issued in her name, except mere assertion of the first defendant that he is a tenant of the suit schedule land, no other documents have been produced. Holding so, the lower appellate Court allowed both the appeals. It is not in dispute that pending the appeals, plaintiff-first respondent herein filed I.A.No.809 of 2009 in C.M.A.No.14 of 2009 seeking to suspend the common order passed in I.A.Nos.1083 and 878 of 2008 and to restore the interim order passed in her favour in I.A.No.878 of 2008 dated 31.7.2008. But the lower appellate Court passed the following order: “Heard. Interim stay and notice.” Mere staying the operation of the order dated 31.7.2008 will not amount to reviving of the injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff, but the fact remains that the first defendant-revision petitioner also has not claimed possession over the suit schedule land on vacating the interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that the first defendant-petitioner herein failed to establish his right over the suit schedule land, the lower appellate Court rightly allowed the appeals. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court. Accordingly, both the revisions are dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously uninfluenced by any of the observations made by it while disposing of the I.As. or by the lower appellate Court. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 09, 2011 Tsr.