HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5351 of 2010 Date: June 29, 2011 Between: Halavath Bixapathi, S/o.Hemla, Aged 40 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-78, Nandanaik Thanda, H/o.Dasrunaik Thanda, Vishwnadhapuram Village, Geesukonda Mandal, Warangal District and another … Petitioners And Moodu Sariya, S/o.Hemija, Aged 60 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-90, Nandanaik Thanda, H/o.Dasrunaik Thanda, Geesukonda Mandal, Warangal District … Respondent Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved of the order dated 28.07.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.6 of 2010, by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, confirming the order dated 07.12.2008 passed in I.A.No.1410 of 2009 in O.S.No.844 of 2009, by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The dispute relates to a piece of land admeasuring Ac.010 guntas covered by Sy.No.652 of Nanda Naik Thanda, H/o.Dasra Naik Thanda, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District. Alleging interference by the petitioners herein, who are defendants in the aforesaid suit, the respondent herein has filed the suit in the year 2009. Pending the suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.1410 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking temporary injunction. Interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.1410 of 2009 and it was made absolute while disposing of the said I.A., by order dated 07.12.2009. In proof of possession of the suit schedule property, respondent has filed documentary evidence vide Exs.P.1 to P.7. On behalf of the petitioners, Exs.R.1 to R.10 were marked. The trial Court, prima facie, accepting the possession of the respondent granted injunction. On the petitioner filing an appeal, vide C.M.A.No.6 of 2010, the lower appellate Court rejected the same, by order dated 07.12.2009, recording a finding that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and granted injunction. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Rama Chandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in question is not an agricultural land and in absence of any clear documentary evidence, the trial Court erred in granting injunction and the same is declined to be interfered with by the lower appellate Court, and the same is illegal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the documentary evidence, Exs.P.5 to P.7 show the possession of the respondent and there is no contra-evidence to show possession of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that, as per the entries made in Pahanies for the years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2007-08, for the suit schedule property, possession of the respondent is recorded. In that view of the matter, the trial Court has correctly appreciated the documentary evidence on record to come to a prima facie conclusion that the respondent is in possession and granted injunction and the lower appellate Court declined to interfere with the order of the trial Court, recording valid findings. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, I do not find any illegality to interfere with the orders impugned, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, as the suit is of the year 2009, I direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within six months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 29, 2011 MRR