HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.555 AND 558 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Petitioner in both the revisions has filed O.S. No.111 of 2006 against the respondents therein, in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. He alleged that respondents are trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the same. He has also filed I.A. No.415 of 2006 under Order - XXXIX Rules - 1 and 2 CPC. 2. Respondents, on the other hand, filed a counter claim for the relief of perpetual injunction against the petitioner vis-à-vis the same property. In turn, they have also filed I.A. No.558 of 2006 for temporary injunction. The trial Court heard both the applications together and through a common order dated 22-03-2007, dismissed I.A. No.415 of 2006 and allowed I.A. No.558 of 2006. 3. Petitioner filed CMA Nos.4 and 7 of 2007 against the orders in I.A. Nos.415 and 558 of 2006, respectively, in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. Both the appeals were dismissed through a common order dated 12-10-2009. Hence, these two revisions. 4. Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client filed voluminous evidence before the trial Court to prove his possession over the suit schedule property and that a finding was recorded as to possession in his client’s favour and that not only the relief of temporary injunction was denied to him but it was granted in favour of the respondents. He submits that lower appellate Court also failed to appreciate the matter from the correct perspective. 6. Ms. K. Pallavi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the father of the respondents filed a suit for declaration being O.S. No.66 of 1992 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda in respect of the same land and that the suit was decreed. She contends that the possession of her clients over the land was certified through a panchanama in E.P. No.25 of 1995, marked as Ex.R-4, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner is in possession of the property. 7. The revisions are filed against the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. Though the suit filed by the petitioner was for the relief of perpetual injunction, respondents claimed the same relief by way of a counter claim. As a result, two applications for temporary injunction were filed by the parties against each other. 8. Before the trial Court, petitioner filed Exs.P-1 to P-22, which are mostly the certified copies of pahanis issued in his favour as well as predecessors in title. Respondents, on the other hand, filed Exs.R- 1 to R-19, which are also mostly certified copies of pahanis. 9. An important aspect of the matter is that vendor of the petitioner suffered decree in O.S. No.66 of 1992 filed for the relief of declaration of title and injunction. It is stated that O.S. No.30 of 1999 filed against the respondents was dismissed and in several proceedings, the possession of respondents or their predecessor in title was acknowledged by none other than the Court itself in the form of a report of the Bailiff. Though this is not the stage to dwell into the question of actual possession on merits, a prima facie case in this regard needs to be verified. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have examined the matter in that perspective and recorded findings to the effect that respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 10. It is true that at one place in the order, trial Court observed that possession of the respondents is evidenced by pahanis up to the year 2003 and beyond that pahanis are in favour of the petitioner. All the same, the report of the Bailiff and the fact that the vendors of the petitioner suffered decree in the civil Court, obviously, weighed with the trial Court and the lower appellate Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders under revision. Disposal of the suit itself can be directed to be expedited. 11. Hence, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, as early as possible, uninfluenced by any observations made by it in the orders passed in the interlocutory applications or those made by the lower appellate Court in the CMAs or this Court in these revisions. No order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 16, 2010. KTL