IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5878 of 2009 Between: Mavuri Malleswari … Petitioner And Sanapala Satyavathi … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5878 OF 2009 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order passed by the V Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry in dismissing C.M.A.No.20 of 2007 on 30.06.2007, confirming the order of dismissal passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in I.A.No.682 of 2007 in O.S.No.296 of 2007, dated 09.07.2007 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the suit filed for perpetual injunction, the above I.A. came to be filed to restrain the respondent from making any further constructions in front of the plaint schedule property, contending that the petitioner is the owner of the plaint schedule property and after purchase she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondent, who has no right in the road left by the Gram Panchayat for their ingress and aggress, has been making efforts to make constructions in the road margin and he should be restrained from the same. The trial court dismissed the I.A. holding that the report of the Advocate Commissioner, dated 24.03.2007 discloses that the respondent laid the foundations with bricks to the ground level and nine pillars to a height of 10’ with iron bars for laying down pillars; the disputed passage is to the eastern side of the petitioner’s house and western side of the respondent’s house and there are traces of old wall and on the said wall only the respondent laid iron mess for laying the basement for construction of the wall. In view of the same, since the petitioner failed to place any evidence, that the respondent is constructing the house by encroaching into the road, he is not entitled to injunction. The said order has been confirmed by the appellate court. In view of the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts that the respondent is making constructions, on the basement of the same old wall, which was removed by them and merely because the respondent filed public interest litigation, the same cannot be a ground to grant injunction restraining the respondent. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 22nd January 2010 lmv