IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2563 OF 2009 Between: Mirja Hussain Baig ..... Petitioner AND Sk. John Mohammad & two others .....Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2563 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.2 Mirja Hussain Baig against the order dated 30-01-2009 in I.A. No.124 of 2008 in A.S. No.12 of 2007 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally. 2. The impugned petition filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed along with the appeal suit, which was filed by the respondents – plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal suit vide judgment and decree dated 30-01-2009 confirming the dismissal of O.S. No.116 of 1997, for injunction, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sathupalli vide judgment and decree dated 07-05-2007. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, revision petitioner filed the impugned petition contending that during the pendency of the legal proceedings, plaintiffs have erected certain structures, as such, an order may be passed with regard to removal of those structures, which was refused by the lower appellate Court vide impugned order. 4. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in view of Order - XLI Rule – 33 read with Section 151 C.P.C., the lower appellate Court has powers to pass orders with regard to removal of the structures which were erected during the pendency of the legal proceedings, but it has erroneously dismissed the impugned petition, as such, the same has to be set aside. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision ? 6. The legal position with regard to power of the lower appellate court may not be in dispute, but the question is whether there was any finding with regard to any structures made by the respondents during the pendency of the appeal proceedings. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no such finding by the Courts below, particularly by the appellate Court. 7. Such being the case, there was absolutely no possibility for the appellate Court to give any directions in the impugned petition. 8. Thus, there are no merits in this revision to admit the same. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take separate legal proceedings, if any, for the relief claimed, if he is so advised. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J August 10, 2009. PV