THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4154 of 2010 (Dated : 19-11-2010) Between: K.Ram Reddy S/o Shiva Reddy R/o Bichal village, Mahabubnagar District. …Petitioner A n d Gundepally Jagannath Reddy ….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4154 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 06.7.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.37 of 2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC assailing the order dated 01.6.2009 passed in I.A.No.371 of 2008 in O.S.No.12 of 2008 on the fie of Senior Civil Judge, at Narayanpet. 2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff and whereas the petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.12 of 2008. The plaintiff filed the suit for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. He also filed I.A.No.371 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking for a temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. 3. The defendant filed counter resisting the application. 4. On behalf of the plaintiff, 26 documents have been marked and whereas on behalf of the defendant, four documents have been marked in the trial Court. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience and thereby, proceeded to allow the application, by order dated 01.6.2009. The defendant challenged the order by filing C.M.A.No.37 of 2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. The learned Additional District Judge, on a reappraisal of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet in I.A.No.371 of 2008 in O.S.No.12 of 2008 and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the appeal by order dated 06.7.2010. Hence this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner–defendant is a co-sharer; in which case, no injunction can be granted against the petitioner-defendant. A further submission has been made that Exs.R-1 to R-4 substantiate the contention of the petitioner-defendant with regard to his possession over the property and the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court committed error in not giving due importance to them. 7. I have gone through the order passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court. The respondent-plaintiff asserted his possession over the suit schedule property. He placed on record the pattedar passbook and also the certified copies of the pahanies commencing from 1970-71 to 2006-2007. Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of ROR. Exs.P-2 to P-21 are the certified copies of pahani patrikas. The plaintiff is able to prove his possession over the property by placing on record the pahani patrika and so also the certified copy of the ROR . Therefore, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court is justified in granting injunction in favour of plaintiff. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.19-11-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4154 of 2010 (Dated : 19-11-2010)