THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.4873 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition has been filed against the order passed in C.M.A. No.24 of 2009 on 06.07.2010 by the learned I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No.24 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siricilla for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of house Plot No.32, admeasuring 325 square yards in Survey No.721 situated at Venkatraonagar, Siricilla Town and Mandal. Pending the suit, he filed I.A. No.223 of 2009, seeking temporary injunction. By order dated 15.10.2009, the learned trial Court granted interim injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents/defendants filed appeal in C.M.A. No.24 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. By judgment and decree dated 06.07.2010, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and thereby set aside the order of the learned trial Court. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the present revision. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also completed the construction of the house in the suit plot, after obtaining necessary permission from the municipal authorities vide permission dated 23.07.2009, Ex.P.2. He further submits that when the petitioner started construction, the respondents/defendants started interfering with the construction on the ground that the petitioner had encroached certain land belonging to them. He also submits that initially the Court below granted ad interim injunction, prima facie, satisfying that the petitioner had the prima facie, title and possession and thereafter on behalf of the respondents filed counter and after due enquiry into I.A. No.223 of 2009, the Court below granted the interim injunction vide order dated 15.10.2009. He further submits that the respondents themselves admitted the possession of the suit schedule land by the petitioner therefore, the Court below had rightly granted interim injunction after due verification of the documents filed by both the parties. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. He further submits that the lower appellate Court had not considered the documents, Exs.P.1 and P.2, registered sale deed and permission with approval sketch map dated 23.07.2009 granted by the municipal authorities, respectively, adduced by the petitioner. Since the construction of house is already completed, the order under impugned is erroneous and illegal and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner had completed his construction of house by encroaching certain land belonging to them. She further submits that the respondents land is situated towards the Western side of the petitioner’s land and encroachment is already made and construction is also completed even in spite of objections made by the respondents to the municipal authorities, which is marked as Ex.R.8, without considering the same, the learned trial Court granted interim injunction and on which, appeal has been preferred and the same is allowed. Therefore, the order under impugned does not suffer from any legal infirmity and requires any interference of this Court. Heard the leaned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. Admittedly, initially the trial Court granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner assailing which, the respondents preferred appeal and the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Further, it is also not in dispute that the construction of house of the petitioner is completed but the dispute that the petitioner encroached certain land belongs to the respondents is not resolved. For the purpose of granting injunction, prima facie, possession has to be proved and based on the documents adduced by the petitioner Exs.P.1 and P.2, granted interim injunction. It is also to be noted here that the respondents have objected his possession on the ground that the petitioner is making construction encroaching certain land belongs to the respondents, which is situated towards western side of the suit schedule land. With regard to the rights over the suit schedule land to the extent allegedly encroached is in dispute, till disposal of the suit, the learned trial Court ought not to have granted interim injunction. However, the fact remains that there is no dispute that the petitioner has completed construction of house and this Court passed order of status quo. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that this revision can be disposed of with a liberty to the parties to make appropriate application before the Court below seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for identifying the land in dispute belongs to whom, as per the documents possessed by the parties. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of with a liberty to the parties to make appropriate application before the Court below seeking appointment of the Advocate Commissioner for identifying the land in dispute belongs to whom, as per the documents possessed by them and in the even of such an application, it is for the Court below to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Till such time, the order of status quo shall continue. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 06.12.2010 LSK