THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.No. 5473 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders of the learned II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.M.A.No. 32 of 2009, dated 15.6.2009 confirming the order dated 5.1.2009 passed in I.A.No. 300 of 2008 in O.S.No. 2523 of 2008 passed by the earned X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad granting injunction in favour of the appellants. Brief facts of the revision are that: Petitioner herein is the petitioner-plaintiff and respondents herein are the respondents-defendants before the learned trial Court. Petitioner-plaintiff filed an I.A. 300 of 2008 for grant of temporary injunction and the learned trial Court after hearing both the sides, has allowed the said petition with certain conditions. Challenging the said order, the defeated respondents-defendants have filed C.M.A.No. 32 of 2009 before the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court after hearing both the sides has set aside the order passed by the trial Court. Challenging the said order of the lower appellate Court, the petitioner-plaintiff has approached this Court by way of this Revision Petition. Heard both sides. Initially injunction was granted by the trial Court and the respondents herein claiming ownership over the suit schedule property; they had 16 flats and out of said 16 flats, seven flats are occupied by the members of the appellant association and remaining 9 flats are being occupied by the respondents. It is also stated that the I.A. was allowed by the learned trial Court subject to condition that the members of the Petitioner Association shall pay expenditure of Rs. 8.10 lakhs proportionately incurred by the respondents in installing the lift. The matter has gone to the lower appellate Court by the Appellants Association for using the Lift. It is observed by the lower appellate Court that the members of the Association has not contributed any amount for installing the lift. It is further observed by the lower appellate Court that merely because the members of the Association are occupied some other flats, the trial court ought not to have granted direction. In view of the categorical finding that there is no prima facie case in favour of the members of the Association, I am of the opinion that the order passed in C.M.A.No. 32 of 2009 is legal and valid and accordingly, the C.R.P. is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J 19.11.2009 CHV