HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.293, 294 and 295 of 2011 Date: 29-8-2011 C.R.P.No.293 of 2011: Between Bathula Sreelatha … Petitioner/Appellant/ Petitioner/Plaintiff and Ch.Madhukar Reddy and 2 others … Respondents/Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants C.R.P.No.294 of 2011: Between Bathula Rajender … Petitioner/Appellant/ Petitioner/Plaintiff and Ch.Madhukar Reddy and 2 others … Respondents/Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants C.R.P.No.295 of 2011: Between Bathula Eswari … Petitioner/Appellant/ Petitioner/Plaintiff and Ch.Madhukar Reddy and 2 others … Respondents/Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.293, 294 and 295 of 2011 Common Order: These civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the common judgment dated 25-11-2010 in C.M.A.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2008 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases cum VII Additional District Judge, Warangal, in confirming the common order dated 23-11-2007 in I.A.Nos.1872, 1874 and 1876 of 2006 in O.S.Nos.1266, 1267 and 1268 of 2006, respectively, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, dismissing the said applications for grant of temporary injunction. 2. The petitioners herein are the respective plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suits before the trial Court. 3. During the pendency of the suits, the petitioners filed the interlocutory applications seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court by common order dated 23-11-2007 while recording a finding that the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case with regard to their title and possession, rejected the applications. As against the same, the petitioners have carried the matter by way of appeals in C.M.A.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2008. The lower appellate Court by common judgment dated 25-11-2010 dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners. 4. Heard Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners acquired the petition schedule properties by way of a gift and also sale deeds and in spite of the documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court dismissed the interlocutory applications and also the lower appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and dismissed the appeals. 6. I have perused the common order passed by the trial Court as well as the common judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. Though some documentary evidence was filed before the trial Court in the interlocutory applications, but there is no acceptable prima facie evidence to show the possession of the petitioners over the petition schedule properties. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, having considered the evidence on record, have just come to the conclusion that prima facie case was not made out by the petitioners for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suits. In view of the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, I do not find any legality in these civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the same. 7. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, as the suits are of the year 2006 and identified matters, they are ripe for trial, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, is directed to dispose of the suits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this common order. No costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 29th August, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.293, 294 and 295 of 2011 (Common Order) 29th August, 2011. (Ak)