THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5980 of 2009 26.03.2010 Between: Pala Lakshmikanthamma ….Petitioner AND Buddana Suryachandra Rao …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5980 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a plaintiff. She filed O.S.No.278 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem for perpetual injunction. She pleaded that the suit schedule property admeasuring Acs.3.06 cents in survey Nos.287/1 and 287/2 situated at Mudunuru Village was purchased in her name when she was minor in 1977 under two sale deeds, Exs.P.1 and P.2 and that she is in possession and cultivating the land for over fifteen years. She also alleges that when disputes arose between her and her father, she handedover the property to her brother Nethala Arjuna Rao. The respondent (defendant) tried to encroach upon the land on 15.05.2005. She also filed revenue receipts and records and claimed ad interim injunction in I.A.No.856 of 2005. The same was opposed by respondent. He pleaded that though the property was initially purchased in the name of petitioner, subsequently on attaining majority she executed gift deed in her father’s name and that defendant purchased the property from the father of petitioner Nethala Rajarao. He denied possession of petitioner. Considering the evidence on record, the Court below believed Exs.P.1 to P.9 and granted ad interim injunction on 28.11.2005. Respondent appealed. By impugned order, dated 17.09.2008, the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration. In this revision, it is mainly contended that the order of the trial Court has been set aside without assigning any valid reasons and therefore, remand is bad. Reliance is placed on Kota Suryanarayana v Penumatcha Lakshmipathi Raju[1], wherein it was held The appellate Court has sufficient power to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal on merits, but it is possible only when the appelalte court in the interest of justice feels that a remand was just and proper and the appellate Corut should arrive at a finding on the material available on record that the judgment of the trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be reversed or set aside. There is a condition precedent for passing the order under Order 41, Rule 23, CPC. Except observing that the partnership firm was not dissolved, the appellate Court did not assign any other reason stating as to how the interests of either of the parties would suffer, whether due to non-availability of sufficient oral or documentary evidence. The appellate Court did not specify as to what are the specific gaps in the evidence adduced by both parties and how it is going to prejudice either of the parties. The mere observation of the appellate Court that the trial Court has to decide the matter on issues 1 to 3 is not sufficient to sustain the order of remand. This Court has perused the order of the trial Court as well as appellate Court. Indisputably the respondent did not produce the alleged gift deed executed by petitioner in favour of her father, based on which the respondent purchased suit schedule proerty. In addition, except producing Ex.R.7, pattadar pass book, he did not adduce any evidence at the relevant time to prove possession. On the contrary, the petitioner exhibited Exs.P.3 to P.8 which are land revenue receipts showing her possession. Therefore, to prevent any breach of legal injury, it would be better to maintain status quo and direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be status quo with regard to suit schedule property in O.S.No.278 of 2005. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem shall dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, excluding the Court vacation period. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.03.2010 Pln [1] AIR 2002 AP 340