IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5020 of 2009 BETWEEN: Sd. Tabassum, W/o. Shahin ... PETITIONER AND Sure Krishna Reddy, S/o. Malakonda Reddy ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5020 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 13.07.2009, passed in C.M.A.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the learned Family Court-cum- Additional District Judge, Nellore, confirming the order, dated 31.07.2007, passed in I.A.No.357 of 2007 in O.S.No.70 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, Nellore District, whereunder the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “C.P.C.”), was ordered as prayed for. Petitioner is defendant No.16 in the suit O.S.No.70 of 2007 filed by the respondent herein. The respondent herein and the defendant Nos.1 to 7 in the suit are the joint owners of the land in dispute and defendant Nos.8 to 15 in the suit are the third parties. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased land admeasuring Ac.19-25 cents in Survey No.441/1 situated at Gowravaram Panchayat, Kavali Rural Mandal, from defendant Nos.1 to 15, which in fact in total measuring only Ac.16-81 cents. In order to restrain the petitioner/defendant No.16 and her partisans from altering the land in dispute the respondent herein filed the above I.A on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, Nellore District. The Trial Court on the basis of Exs.P-1 to P-10, Ex.A-1 – certified copy of ROR and Exs.A-7 and A-8 found that the names of the respondent herein and defendant Nos.1 to 7 in the suit were present in the 10(1) Account and as well as in the Adangal. Further, the total extent of land in dispute in survey No.441/1 was recorded as Ac.16-81 cents, whereas the petitioner/defendant No.16 has purchased the said land admeasuring Ac.19-25 cents from defendant Nos.1 to 15 and it is also not known why defendant Nos.8 to 15 were made parties to the said sale transactions. Thus, in view of the prima facie evidence available on record, the trial Court granted interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C. directing the defendants in the suit including the petitioner/defendant No.16 not to alter the nature of the land in dispute during pendency of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/defendant No.16 filed C.M.A.No.21 of 2007 before Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nellore. The learned Judge of the Family Court after going through the entire material placed before it and on perusal of the order made in I.A.No.351 of 2007 in O.S.No.70 of 2007, dated 31.07.2007, held that the Trial Court has not committed any error calling for its interference and therefore, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that neither the trial Court nor the Appellate Court has committed any error, calling interference of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ C.V. RAMULU, J January 22, 2010 MD