THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 570 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners claim to have been assigned different extents of land in S.No.84 of Pedda Gottimukkala village of Shivampet Mandal, Medak District, in the year 1986. Complaining that the third respondent herein and some others are interfering with their land, they filed O.S.No.79 of 2006 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, for the relief of perpetual injunction. They also filed I.A.No.268 of 2006 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. An order of ad interim injunction was granted initially, and stay was granted on 23.02.2007. The respondents, on the other hand, filed O.S.No.138 of 2006 in respect of Ac.2.10 gts., of land in same survey number, stating that they have been assigned different extents of land and that the petitioners are interfering with their possession. They filed I.A.No.554 of 2006 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., in the same Court. The I.A. was allowed on 28.02.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.5 of 2008 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Medak. The C.M.A., was dismissed on 17.10.2008. Hence the C.R.P. Heard Sri Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the respondents. The claim made by the petitioners as well as the respondents in the respective suits filed by them is on the basis of the assignment said to have been made by the Government in their favour. The bits of land assigned to them are in S.No.84. The trial Court found prima facie case in favour of both the parties and granted temporary injunctions. In case, the boundaries for the lands assigned to the respective beneficiaries are clear and distinct, there would not be any difficulty in ensuring compliance with the orders of injunction. From a perusal of the pleadings in the interlocutory applications and plaint, it is evident that there is some overlapping of claims. Having regard to the limited nature of the relief claimed in the suits as well as the interlocutory applications, there is not much, that the trial Court could have done. This Court is of the view that the controversy can be resolved by directing the Tahsildar, Shivampet, to verify the assignments in favour of the respective parties and to get the boundaries fixed with reference to the concerned revenue records and Tippons. For this purpose, the parties have to file an application before the trial Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing that a) The Court of Junior Civil Judge, shall club O.S.No.79 of 2006 and O.S.No.138 of 2006. b) In case, the petitioners or the respondents file an application to implead the Tahsildar, Shivampet, the same shall be ordered, and the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders directing the Tahsildar to cause survey and fixation of boundaries of the respective extents of land assigned in favour of the parties to both the suits, duly fixing some time. c) The parties shall abide by the demarcation made by the office of the Tahsildar and if any of them feel aggrieved by the demarcation, it shall be open to them to file suits under Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act. d) Till the demarcation is undertaken by the office of the Tahsildar, Shivampet, the parties shall maintain status quo obtaining as on today as regards the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.79 of 2006 as well as O.S.No.138 of 2006. _____________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 6th August, 2009 Js.