IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3951 of 2010 Between: Jadhav Saheb Rao and two others …Petitioners A n d Shinde Anand and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3951 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 09-07-2010 in C.M.A.No.8 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein, was allowed and the order dated 10-11-2009 in I.A.No.183 of 2009 in O.S.No.45 of 2009, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, was set aside and temporary injunction was granted restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the pliant schedule land. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The respondents herein filed the suit against the petitioners/ defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the suit schedule lands of Ac.2-04 gts and Ac.2-04 gts both in Sy.No.138 situate at Limba(K) village of Adilabad District. The respondents also filed I.A.No.183 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC for a temporary injunction. An ex parte interim injunction was granted on 05-10- 2009. After the petitioners herein filed counter, the learned Junior Civil Judge, after hearing both sides, vacated the interim injunction and dismissed I.A.No.183 of 2009 on 10-11-2009. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein filed C.M.A.No.8 of 2009. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, by order dated 09-07- 2010, allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal of I.A.No.183 of 2009 and consequently granted temporary injunction. Hence, the present civil revision petition by the defendants. 4. According to the petitioners/defendants, they are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land for the last more than 20 years and on the date of filing of the suit also they are in possession as pattedars and cultivators. The petitioners produced pahanies from 1992 to 2007 before the Courts below to prove their possession. According to them, they raised kandi crop in the schedule land this year. The petitioners alleged that the respondents/plaintiffs on the basis of fabricated documents and pahanies issued by Village Revenue Officer who is not competent to issue the same under the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 filed this suit falsely claiming to be in possession. They would further contend that the father of the respondents/plaintiffs sold out the land of Ac.4-13 gts in Sy.No.138 to one Kishan Patel but in the R.O.R, Sy.No.137 was mistakenly transferred in the name of Kishan Patel, though they were in possession and the remaining Ac.2-00 was also sold in favour of first petitioner’s father Rama Rao. The petitioners further contend that taking advantage of the mistake in entering the name of the respondents’ father as pattedar in respect of Sy.No.138, the respondents’ father fabricated two gift deeds in favour of respondents 1 and 2 in collusion with the V.R.O and got the names of the respondents inserted as cultivators. The petitioners further contend that Exs.B- 18 to B-32 would clearly establish the possession of the schedule land with the petitioners. 5. It is not disputed that Tahasildar, Kuntala passed orders directing that the names of the petitioners herein be entered in the cultivation column in the revenue records pertaining to the suit land and aggrieved by the same, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal and by order dated 06- 01-2011, the learned RDO set aside the orders of the Tahasildar in view of the civil dispute pending before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court in O.S.No.45 of 2009 and directed both parties to abide by the orders of the Civil Court. In view of the specific contention of the petitioners/defendants that the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs is based on collusive and fabricated entries in the revenue records and that the respondents have taken advantage of a mistake that has crept in the revenue records while entering the names against the survey numbers concerned, it is a matter to be enquired into by the trial Court and adjudicated upon on evidence that may be adduced by both sides. As the suit itself is one for injunction, the contentions raised by both parties at this interlocutory stage would certainly fall for consideration during the course of trial. It is, therefore, considered imprudent to go into the merits of the rival contentions at this interlocutory stage and, on the other hand, it would be just and proper to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself. 6. In the circumstances, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time the suit is disposed of, both parties shall maintain status quo obtaining as on today in respect of the schedule lands. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th April, 2011 Lrkm