THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1968 of 2009 & 2021 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : 1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order dated 21.4.2009 passed in I.A. Nos. 1397 of 2008 and 1398 of 2008 respectively, in C.M.A. No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. 2. Since these revisions arise out of a common order, they are being taken up together for disposal by this Common Order. 3. The respondent herein filed Original Suit No.842 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem for perpetual injunction, but could not succeed to get interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. So, he filed C.M.A. No.4 of 2008 before the appellate court and was successful in getting interim injunction against the petitioner herein. Subsequently, the matter carried to this Court by the petitioner herein by way of Civil Revision Petition No. 3084 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit within three months uninfluenced by any observations made in the order of the appellate court. 4. Thereafter, the respondent herein, filed I.A. No.1397 of 2008 in the C.M.A. to direct the petitioner herein to replace the name board of the respondent hospital as its place at petition schedule property. He also filed I.A. No.1398 of 2008 for removal of the illegal stair case and lift and its other construction in the petition schedule property in front of entrance of his hospital alternatively direct its demolition at his costs through process of Court. Thereafter, he filed two separate memos restricting his claims in the I.As. to the relief provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) C.P.C. 5. The court below, vide the impugned common order, allowed the said petitions and memos, and ordered detention of the petitioner herein in civil prison for a period of three months, under Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) (1) C.P.C.. Challenging the same, the present revisions are filed. 6. Heard both sides. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein is the tenant in respect of an area to an extent of 2000 square feet in ground floor in southern portion of the building bearing H.No.5-14-2 situated at P.Gopal Reddy Complex, Coolie Line, Kothagudem. The appellate court granted interim injunction against the petitioner herein not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment, in respect of the petition schedule premises. The grievance of the respondent herein is that inspite of injunction, the petitioner herein constructed a stair case and trying to erect lift meant for the use and benefit of the tenants and others who have to go to the first or second floor. Both sides have filed photographs and they have not been denied or disputed. As seen from the photographs, the stair case that was constructed by the petitioner/landlady, if at all causes obstruction, it would cause obstruction to the medical shop which is not part of petition schedule premises. Admittedly, the clinic of the respondent is located by the side of the medical shop. On seeing the photographs, which are not in dispute, it is clear that in no manner the construction of the stair case was causing obstruction for ingress and egress of the petitioner to go to the premises under tenancy. It is not the case of the respondent herein that the petitioner was interfering with his possession of the premises in question in which he is running a clinic. Therefore, the question of violating of injunction order does not arise since it is not in dispute that she constructed stair case beyond the premises in question. 8. Further more, injunction is granted only with regard to interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner has violated the injunction order and trespassed into some extent and erected the lift and constructed stair case, within the premises which was given on lease to the petitioner. Such evidence is lacking. Even the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent did not speak that the lift was erected or stair case was constructed within 2000 square feet of the site which was in the possession of the respondent herein, in the ground floor. In the absence of any such evidence, the question of violating the orders of injunction does not arise inasmuch as it is not a case of the respondent that the petitioner is interfering with the possession of the petition schedule premises. These aspects have been completely overlooked by the court below and the impugned order was passed without adverting to the point involved. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. 9. The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 08.12.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1968 of 2009 & 2021 of 2009 08.12.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1968 of 2009 & 2021 of 2009 08.12.2010 Between: P.Satavathi …Petitioner And Vandanapu Venkateswarlu …Respondent