HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4650 of 2009 Dated : 26.02.2010 Between : M/s.Robo Silicon Limited ….. Petitioner a n d Kumari Yadaiah & others ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4650 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.5 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Medak, dated 07.09.2009, by which, the order of the trial Court dated 20.04.2009 in I.A.No.180 of 2008 in O.S.No.71 of 2008 was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry and consideration. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit, who sought for an interim injunction pending the suit in I.A.No.180 of 2008 in O.S.No.71 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsapur, restraining the defendants, etc. from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The revision petitioner claimed that one Kummari Veeresha and Kummari Bhasker were the absolute owners and possessors of the property for more than 20 years as reflected in the revenue records and the plaintiff purchased the said property from them under a registered sale deed dated 18.11.2005 since when it is in possession. An attempt to dispossess the plaintiff/revision petitioner was claimed to have been made on 29.04.2008 leading to the suit. The defendants claim the pahanies to have been manipulated in collusion with the revenue authorities and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to be in possession and enjoyment of suit property, which was inherited by them from their father, and the defendants claim that the petitioner-plaintiff had no right to execute any sale deed and that the plaintiff company-petitioner is never in possession. During the course of enquiry into the petition, the trial Court marked Exs.P.1 to P.31 and Exs.R.1 to R.10 and by its order dated 20.04.2009, it found the plaintiff to be having prima facie case and balance convenience in its favour and that it is likely to sustain irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction. The trial Court considered that the copies of pahanies filed before it show prima facie the possession of the plaintiff and the objections of the defendants about the absence of any title for the plaintiff and its vendors had to be obviously relegated to the suit. While the trial Court noted the documents filed by both the parties, the trial Court only relied on the entries in the pahani patraks to allow the injunction petition and made the ex parte interim injunction granted at the time of filing of the suit, absolute. In appeal, the Senior Civil Judge, Medak, in the impugned order in C.M.A.No.5 of 2009 dated 07.09.2009 considered the respective cases of both the parties and observed that there was no plea or proof of any general power of attorney-cum-agreement bond in favour of the person, who executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of the alleged original owners. It is also observed that both parties are claiming title over the property and it considered obtaining of Exs.P3 to P.23, copies of pahanies, by the third respondent to have not been explained by the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court discussed in detail about the circumstances concerning the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with reference to other documents, but it itself had observed that the source of title of plaintiff’s vendors, etc. are questions to be inquired into during the course of trial, but not at the interlocutory stage. The Appellate Court felt that trial Court did not discuss the entries in the documents in detail and considered the case as one to be remanded to the trial Court to consider the cases of the parties afresh by giving an opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence and to give detailed findings on the documents filed by both the parties. Accordingly, it remanded the matter with a direction to dispose of the injunction petition within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The plaintiff challenges the said order in this revision petition contending that the remand under Order XLI Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not a matter of course and the Appellate Court itself should have come to a conclusion on merits on the evidence placed before it. The plaintiff contended that the title dispute between the parties has to be inquired into in detail during the trial and no reasons were given as to why the documents filed by the plaintiff should have to be disbelieved. While contending that the entries in the revenue records cannot be refused to be accepted merely because of any complaint by the respondents, the plaintiff desired the impugned order to be reversed. Sri P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri M.Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, are heard at length. The point for consideration is whether the order of remand by the Appellate Court or the order granting an interim injunction by the trial Court is reasonable and appropriate on the material relied on by the parties? The trial Court in its order was satisfied by referring to Exs.P3 to P.22 certified copies of pahani patraks, apart from the registered sale deed Ex.P.24 as persuading to act on the possession and enjoyment claimed by the plaintiff. There is no reason on record to consider such a prima facie conclusion by the trial Court based on pahani patraks to be not in accordance with law. It is seen from the record that the respondents-defendants have filed the title deeds, pattedar passbooks, sale deed and other documents also said to be relating to the suit property. But, the revenue record showing possession is pahani patrak and the defendants filed only the pahani for the year 1973-74 marked as Ex.R.7. As at the stage of the interlocutory adjudication, the Court is concerned with only the existence of a prima facie case followed by the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the trial Court cannot be considered to have gone wrong in referring to the probable possession indicated by the pahani patraks leading it to conclude in favour of the plaintiff. The Appellate Court in its judgment, while noting the primary burden on the plaintiff to show the minimum ingredients for grant of an interim injunction, proceeded to doubt the pahani patraks on the ground that in spite of the plaintiff applying for the certified copies, they were obtained in the name of the third respondent. Whosoever might have obtained the certified copies of pahani patraks, if the genuineness of the certified copies is not in doubt, the question would be as to the probative value of the entries in the pahani patraks, but not who obtained them or in whose name they were obtained. The Appellate Court while being clear that disputed questions of title are to be enquired into during trial, but not at the interlocutory stage, still finds fault with the trial Court for not going in depth into the acceptability of the various documents in this regard, which approach does not seem to be in accordance with the accepted principles in this regard. What was the detailed discussion of the documents expected by the Appellate Court is not intelligible from the impugned order and when either party did not appear to have made any request for producing any further evidence in the injunction petition and when neither party complained of being denied an opportunity to produce any evidence by the trial Court, the order of remand to consider the case afresh after such a fresh opportunity being given and on the strength of any further evidence, does not appear to be justified. The ex parte interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff at the time of filing of suit was obviously in force till the impugned judgment and the impugned judgment was suspended on filing of this Civil Revision Petition on 06.10.2009. As the interim injunction was thus throughout in force and as the conclusions of the trial Court do not appear to be divorced from the material on record, the impugned judgment has to be reversed and as requested by the learned counsel for both the parties, the trial of the suit itself can be expedited. It should also be made clear that the prima facie conclusions arrived at by the trial Court or the Appellate Court or this Court for purposes of determining the petition for interim injunction should not in any manner prejudice the rights and interests of both the parties and the suit shall be decided on the basis of its own merits on the evidence placed before the Court by both the parties uninfluenced by any such observations. Subject to the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 07.09.2009 in C.M.A.No.5 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Medak, is set aside. No costs. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 26th February, 2010 SUR