HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 2577 OF 2010 Friday, the Second day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between M.Raja Sekhar Petitioner AND Sri P.B.S.G. Chary Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 2577 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 4.2.2010 passed in C.M.A. No. 224 of 2008 by the learned III Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 7.8.2008 made in I.A. No. 134 of 2008 in O.S. 1124 of 2008 by the learned X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC seeking ad interim injunction. The petitioner herein filed the above suit seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed IA No. 134 of 2008 seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with his the possession and enjoyment over car parking area for flat bearing No.401, Sri Raghavendra Homes, Barkatpura, Hyderabad by creating any obstruction to the petitioner. It is his case he is the absolute owner and possessor of the said Flat and car parking area was allotted to him in the year 2003, while it is the case of the respondent that the said parking was purchased by him and the petitioner was in permissive possession. The trial court, by order dated 7.8.2008 has dismissed the petition observing that there is no semblence of title in favour of the petitioner for the grant of temporary injunction inasmuch as the documents Exs. P- 1 to P-4 do not reveal that the car parking area has been allotted to and purchased by the petitioner. It is further observed by the trial court that the respondent had permitted the petitioner to park his car for some time in the area purchased by him and there is no rebuttal evidence to this contention. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal in CMA No. 224 of 2008 and the learned III Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by the judgment and decree impugned in this Civil Revision Petition, has dismissed the appeal confirming the order and decree passed by the trial court. As can be seen from Ex.P-1, the sale deed, under which the petitioner purchased the flat, does not speak of car parking while the schedule appended to Ex.R-1, under which the respondent has purchased the flat, speaks of car parking. It is also on record that the petitioner was in permissive possession of the parking area and, therefore, against the real owner, the petitioner cannot seek injunction. In the aforesaid circumstances, the lower appellate court is perfectly justified in observing that whether the petitioner is in possession of car parking area in his individual right or his alleged possession is permissive one, is a question to be decided after full- fledged trial of the suit. Having gone through the material available on record, I am of the considered view that no grounds are made out to interfere with the observations made by both the courts below and I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 2, 2010 MAS