THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP No.3009 of 2009 Between Dwarapudi Venkata Reddy v. Sri Saraswathula Venkata Surya Seetha Rama sastri and others THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP No.3009 of 2009 Oral Order : 1) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 3-7-2009 in CMA No.21 of 2009 passed by the Court of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam in reversing the order dated 30-1-2009 in I.A.No.307 of 2008 in O.S.No.1061 of 2008 on the file of the court of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2) The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and he filed the suit for permanent injunction with regard to an extent of thousand square yards said to be located in Balayyasastry Layout at Allipuram extension ward with specific boundaries. The claim of the plaintiff-revision petitioner is that under an unregistered sale agreement, Ex.P.1 dated 5-4-1973 the property was purchased for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- and thereafter penalty was paid in 1997 and the revision petitioner- plaintiff has sold item no.2 of the property under an agreement of sale dated 21-2-1990 to the 3rd parties, and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. The trial Court though found that the schedule property when compared with item no.1 of Ex.P.1 the extent is not tallying, but relied upon the boundaries and granted injunction. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents carried the matter in appeal before lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court on reconsideration of the matter held that since the schedule does not tally, the lower court ought not to have given importance to Ex.P.1 and set aside the order of injunction passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition by the plaintiff. 3) Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that the revision petitioner proved the ingredients for grant of injunction and therefore the trial Court rightly passed the order of injunction and that the lower appellate Court did not set aside the findings of the trial Court with regard to the possession, but nevertheless allowed the appeal on the ground that a superior court has granted an interim order in a civil suit to which the petitioner herein was not a party and that once a person is not a party to the litigation, any order passed therein, is not binding on the party. 4) On the other hand, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that trial Court having found that the schedule property does not tally, ought not to have given importance to Ex.P.1 and that in Ex.P.1 in the year “73” the figure “3” has been re-written after erasing the earlier writing and that the lower appellate court considering all these aspects rightly set aside the order of injunction passed by the trial Court, therefore no interference is required in this matter. 5) According to the revision petitioner-plaintiff under an unregistered sale agreement, Ex.P.1 the property was purchased for consideration of Rs.40,000/-. According to the plaintiff himself after the purchase of the land under Ex.P.1 the 1st defendant and his sister did not cooperate and postponing the execution, and if that be so, as rightly pointed out by the lower appellate Court, there is no reason as to why the suit for specific performance was not instituted and no legal notice was issued to the 1st defendant and his sister calling upon them to execute a registered sale deed in pursuance of Ex.P.1 right from 1973 under Ex.P.1 till the date of filing of the suit. Be that as it may, no document has been filed by the revision petitioner plaintiff to show one of the ingredients of the possession over the property. In the circumstances, I do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the lower appellate Court. 6) In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. No costs. 16-4-2010 kk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP No.3009 of 2009 16-4-2010