THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.1987 of 2010 Date:19.07.2010 Between: Shaik Abul Fazal @Shaik Abdul Fazal and others. ……..Petitioners/defendants. And Parika Ruthamma and another. …… Respondents/defendants . THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.1987 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 26.10.2009 passed in C.M.A No.13 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the said Principal District Judge dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the defendants assailing the order dated 26.3.2009 passed in I.A.No.1099 of 2008 in O.S.No.452 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.452 of 2008. She filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that she purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 17.1.2007 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. She also moved I.A.No.1099 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with 151 C.P.C seeking for temporary injunction. The defendants resisted the application by filing counter. It is the case of the defendants that the father of the 1st defendant by name S.A.Rahaman has been the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.5-20 guntas in Sy.No.685 and out of Ac.5.20 guntas, he sold an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in favour of Gutha Madhusudhan Reddy and Ac.1.20 guntas in favour of Vangala Dharma Reddy while retaining balance extent of Ac.2.20 guntas. It is further case of the defendants that the father of the 1st defendant filed O.S.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda against the Government of Andhra Pradesh and others to set aside the orders passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, dated 6-3-1999 in file No.A3/790. On full fledged trial, the said suit ended in dismissal on 27.1.2005, and, thereupon, the father of the defendant No.1 filed an appeal being A.S.No.20 of 2005 and the same is pending on the file of III Additional District Judge (I Fast Track Court), Nalgonda. On behalf of the plaintiff, a sale deed dated 17.1.2007 came to be marked as Ex.P1. On behalf of the defendants, two documents came to be marked as Exs.R1 and R2. The trial Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour, and, thereby, proceeded to grant temporary injunction by order dated 26.3.2009. The defendants 1 to 3 filed C.M.A.No.13 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Court at Nalgonda assailing the order dated 26.3.2009 passed in I.A.No.1099 of 2008 in O.S.No.452 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. The learned Principal District Judge, on reappraisal of the material brought on record, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court granting temporary injunction and thereby proceeded to dismiss the appeal, by order dated 26.10.2009. Hence this revision. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent plaintiff. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1st respondent/plaintiff, under the guise of the temporary injunction order, is proceeding with the construction, and, therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the 1st respondent/plaintiff to maintain status-quo. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and granted temporary injunction, and, therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction and moved I.A.No.1099 of 2008 for grant of temporary injunction. She marked the sale deed under which she purchased the plaint schedule property as Ex.A1. The petitioners/defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that the father of the 1st defendant retained Ac.2.20 gunats in Sy.No.685. The trial Court, on considering the material brought on record, recorded a finding that the defendants failed to place any evidence to substantiate the contention with regard to retention of Ac.2.20 guntas by the father of the 1st respondent. The finding recorded by the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court is based on sound reasons and the same does not warrant interference of this Court. If it is the case of the petitioners/defendants that the 1st respondent/plaintiff is contemplating to proceed with the constructions on the suit schedule land under the guise of the temporary injunction, they can move necessary application before the trial Court seeking grant of status-quo with regard to the nature of the land pending the suit. No valid grounds are made out to interfere with the order of granting temporary injunction by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:19.7.2010 mrb