THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2183 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is ﬁled by the plaintiﬀ in O.S.No.1450 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by order, dated 11.03.2011 passed by the learned I-Additional District Judge, Warangal, in C.M.A.No.36 of 2008, conﬁrming order, dated 04.04.2008 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.3060 of 2007. The petitioner/plaintiﬀ ﬁled aforesaid suit for perpetual injunction. The suit schedule property is, open land to an extent of 1400 sq.yards covered by Survey No.4/A of Laxmipuram Shivar, Warangal. It is his case that he purchased the suit property from its earlier owner, Kasarla Laxminarsimha Rao, under a registered agreement of sale-cum- GPA, dated 15.11.2007. Pending the suit, as the respondents are interfering with the property in question, the petitioner by pleading that he is in possession of the same, has ﬁled I.A.No.3060 of 2007 seeking temporary injunction. The respondents opposed the said application by pleading that they are in possession of the schedule property as they have purchased it from Smt. Ayesha Bee, daughter of C.Mohiuddin, under a registered sale deed, dated 30.11.1981 for a valuable consideration. It is stated that the said C.Mohiuddin gifted the part of his property to his two sons and one daughter and he ﬁled declaration before the competent authority and by proceedings in U.C. Case No.A1/3928/76, dated 30.07.1981, he was declared as a non-surplus holder. Before the trial Court, no oral evidence was let in and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiﬀ and on behalf of the respondents, Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. The trial Court after appreciating the documentary evidence on record, disbelieved the documents ﬁled by the petitioner and thereby, rejected I.A.No.3060 of 2007. Though the petitioner carried the matter in C.M.A., the learned I-Additional District Judge, Warangal, rejected the same, by the impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. In this case, it is to be noticed that the land in question is not divided into plots and though the petitioner claims that he purchased the land to an extent 1400 sq.yards covered by Survey No.4/A of Laxmipuram Shivar, Warangal, from Kasarla Laxminarsimha Rao, under a registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA, dated 15.11.2007, source of title is not mentioned therein. It is also to be noticed that father of the predecessor in title of the respondents declared the land in question before the authorities of the Urban Land Ceiling. In that view of the matter, in view of the ﬁndings recorded, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court rightly considered the matter and rejected the relief sought by the petitioner for temporary injunction, as such, it is not a ﬁt case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court conﬁrming the order of the trial Court, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, as it is stated that the pleadings are complete and the suit is of 2007, I direct the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, to dispose of O.S.No.1450 of 2007 itself, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (6) months from today. Subject to the above, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th NOVEMBER, 2011. kvni