THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 229 OF 2008 Dated: 25th January, 2011 Between: Samala Sadanandam and others. ..... Petitioners AND Manjeera Educational Society, Hyderabad and others. .....Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 229 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs who filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the judgment, dated 12-10-2007 in C.M.A.No.3 of 2007 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Warangal, confirming the order dated 12-10-2007 in I.A.No.2152 of 2005 in O.S.No.1421 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, rejecting the application purported to have been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C for granting temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, workmen etc. from causing obstruction and interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.1421 of 2005. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the suit for granting mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the compound wall partly constructed in the suit schedule property and for granting perpetual injunction in their favour against the defendants restraining the defendants from causing obstruction and interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaints’ over the suit schedule property. Along with the suit the plaintiffs also filed application in I.A.No.2152 of 2005 on the file of Principal Junior Civi Judge, Warangal, for granting temporary injunction. The said application was dismissed by the Court below holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their prima facie case. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed appeal in C.M.A.No.3 of 2007 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Warangal. The lower appellate Court also dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by the Court below holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their contention that the defendants have encroached more than 500 sq. yards of land belong to the plaintiffs. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs preferred this revision petition. 5. Both the Courts below did not find favour with the petitioners and rejected the request of the petitioners. Having regard to the concurrent findings of both the courts below, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no need to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court. 6. I do not find any merits in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. However, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, is directed to dispose of the main suit itself within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO 25.01.2011 KVR