THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1707 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.75 of 2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent are the sons of one Sri Pagadaiah. Alleging interference of the suit schedule property by the respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner, O.S.No.75 of 2009 is filed. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.177 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court by order, dated 27.10.2009, dismissed the said I.A.. As against the same, the petitioner carried the matter in C.M.A.No.21 of 2010 and even the lower appellate Court by order, dated 05.02.2011 dismissed the C.M.A. confirming the order of the trial Court. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of valid evidence to show prima facie possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court erroneously disregarded the same and rejected I.A.No.177 of 2009 filed by the petitioner. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court has recorded a finding based on the material on record as such there are no grounds to interfere with the same in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the orders of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. In I.A.No.177 of 2009, no oral evidence was let in by both the parties and documentary evidence was filed on behalf of the petitioner in Exs.P.1 to P.5 and on behalf of the respondent in Exs.R.1 and R.2. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he is in exclusive possession of the property, prima facie, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court found that the suit schedule property is ancestral property and the petitioner being the elder son of their father, name of the petitioner is recorded. In that view of the matter, the trial Court by recording findings based on the material on record, rejected the I.A. and the same is also confirmed by the lower appellate Court. In view of the findings recorded by the Courts below by appreciating the material on record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, as the suit is of 2009 and as it is stated that the pleadings are complete, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st OCTOBER, 2011. kvni