THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.1887 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 02.02.2010, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam in C.M.A.No.56 of 2009 confirming the order, dated 07.07.2009, passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, allowing I.A.No.329 of 2009 in O.S.No.535 of 2009 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the respondent/plaintiff seeking temporary injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. 2. The respondent filed O.S.No.535 of 2009 against the petitioners in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. She also filed I.A.No.329 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The petitioners filed counter opposing the I.A. as well as the suit. Through its order, dated 07.07.2010, the trial Court allowed the said I.A. The petitioners filed C.M.A.No.56 of 2009 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same was dismissed on 02.02.2010. Hence, this civil revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the Courts below should have seen that the petitioners have purchased the property under Ex.B3-sale deed, dated 25.11.2005, prior to the purchase by the respondent under Ex.A1-sale deed, dated 23.12.2008. He further contended that the respondent did not make out any prima facie case or balance of convenience. 5. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have referred to the documents filed by the parties. As per the material on record, the property mentioned in Ex.B3 is not tallied with the suit property, whereas the documents produced by the respondent established her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Since the petitioners are trying to raise shed in the suit property and that the respondent satisfied all the grounds required for grant of temporary injunction, the trial Court granted the temporary injunction in her favour and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court Therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned warranting interference by this Court. 6. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:16.07.2010. sj