THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4634 of 2011 November 24, 2011 Between: Satyada Nageswara Rao, S/o.Appa Rao ... Petitioner And Pilla Simhachalam, W/o.Late Rama Rao And another ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4634 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants (mother and daughter) from in any manner interfering with alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property of the petitioner. He also filed I.A.No.1430 of 2010 for ad interim injunction. The same was dismissed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram on 01.3.2011. His appeal being C.M.A. No.15 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, was also dismissed on 09.11.2011. There against the present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that he along with one Rudraraju Lakshmi purchased the suit schedule property admeasuring Acs.2.00 in S.No.100 of Chendurthi village of Gollaprolu Mandal in East Godavari District under registered sale deed dated 16.2.2008. The property was sold by Silli Lakshmi and Kaparapu Nagamani. He has been in possession of the property and respondents who are no way concerned with the suit schedule property tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner when he refused to accede to their request to lease out the property. The same allegations were made in the interlocutory application also. The second respondent opposed and filed counter. Her case is that the property was originally purchased by Pilli Mariyamma under registered sale deed dated 13.12.1960; she gifted the property to Pilli Rama Rao (husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent) under a gift deed dated 23.4.1979; Rama Rao gifted the property to the second respondent on 16.2.2009; they are in possession and enjoyment of the property; when there was interference from third parties they filed O.S.No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram and obtained injunction in I.A.No.209 of 2009. Before the trial Court, with the consent, Exs.P1 to P12 were marked for the petitioner and Exs.R1 to R12 were marked for the respondents. On considering the evidence, the trial Court and appellate Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding that he failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience, and that the respondents proved their possession by producing documentary evidence. The Counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts below committed grave error in not considering Exs.P8 and R8 properly; under Ex.P8 the two vendors of the petitioners along with Mariyamma obtained a decree for injunction in O.S.No.25 of 1998 against Pilli Rama Rao and his brothers and the same is binding on the respondents who are claiming right and interest through him; and Ex.R8 the order in I.A.No.209 of 2009 in O.S. No.35 of 2009 is not binding on the petitioner. He would further submit that the Courts below gave undue importance to Rs.R8 and also erred in holding that the boundaries in Ex.P1 sale deed of the petitioner are not tallying with the suit schedule boundaries. These contentions are refuted by the Counsel for the respondents. In an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the essential question is whether the petitioner seeking ad interim injunction demonstrated prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship. This is axiomatic. When the petitioner came to the Court alleging possession, and likelihood of legal injury in the event of interference by the opposite party and seeks order to protect his possession, the entire burden is on such person to prove the three elements for obtaining ad interim injunction. The order of injunction cannot be granted just for the asking, as it has serious repercussions – some times – the effect of dispossessing a person who is validly holding the land. To prove prima facie case and balance of convenience, the petitioner relied on Ex.P1 sale deed and Exs.P2 and P3 certificates issued by the Village Revenue Officer (VRO). Ex.P1 is a sale deed and on comparison of the same with Ex.R8 which is a certified copy of the petition in I.A.No.209 of 2009 the trial Court recorded that there is difference of boundaries between both the documents. Be that as it is even as per Ex.P2 certificate issued by VRO it is a dry land which was not assessed to tax and Ex.P2 was not even signed. On considering these documents, the trial Court was not convinced. On the contrary the respondents relied on Ex.R9 possession certificate issued by the VRO as well as tax receipts issued by the VRO in favour of father of the second respondent. A finding was therefore recorded that the petitioner was failed to prove prima facie case and balance of convenience. The appellate Court considered all the documents elaborately and rejected the case of the petitioner observing that the documents produced by the petitioner would not support his allegation of being in possession whereas the documents relied on by the respondents prove their possession. After perusing the orders of the Courts below this Court is convinced that all the relevant factors are kept in view while declining an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. No ground is made to be interfered with the well considered order of the appellate Court under revision. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) November 24, 2011 YS