HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4890 OF 2006 Date:18-11-2011 Between: Bokinala Padmavathi. - - - Petitioner/ Respondent No.1/ Plaintiff. And Bookinala Venkayya and five others. - - - Respondents/ Petitioners/ Defendants. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4890 OF 2006 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 04-01-2006, made in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, (for short, ‘the learned Senior Civil Judge’) the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the Respondent No.1 in the C.M.A. and in I.A. No.520 of 2002 in O.S. No.80 of 2002 and Plaintiff in the Suit. The Respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein are the Appellants in the C.M.A., Petitioners in I.A. No.520 of 2002 in O.S. No.80 of 2002 and Defendants Nos.1 and 2 in the Suit, Respondents Nos.3 to 6 herein are Respondents Nos.2 to 5 in the C.M.A. and in I.A. and Defendants Nos.3 to 6 in the Suit respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court. 3. The Appellants in C.M.A. No.1 of 2005 preferred the said Appeal against the order in I.A. No.520 of 2002 in O.S. No.80 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and on enquiry the learned Senior Civil Judge, set aside the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem made in I.A. No.520 of 2002 in O.S. No. 80 of 2002. Being aggrieved by the order passed in C.M.A. No.1 of 2005, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. The Appellants i.e. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 preferred C.M.A. No.1 of 2005 aggrieved by the order and decree made in I.A. No.520 of 2002 in O.S. No.80 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. In the trial Court, the Petitioners filed a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos.3 to 6 from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the Suit. The Revision Petitioner herein filed the suit for eviction of the Petitioners from the suit schedule property. 5. It is an admitted fact that these Petitioners as tenants are staying in the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It is on record that the suit is filed for their eviction from the suit schedule property. These Petitioners are apprehending that they are going to be evicted by the landlords. Accordingly, it is made clear as per evidence on record that unless the appellants are evicted under due process of law, they cannot be evicted forcibly and the Respondents should not make any obstructions for their continuance in the suit schedule property. The learned Senior Civil Judge, well considered the evidence on record and held that unless the Appellants are evicted under due process of law from the petition schedule property, their possession cannot be taken away by force. Therefore the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge is just and reasonable in the set of circumstances of the case. Therefore, I see no ground to differ with the findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 18-11-2011. Dsh. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 171 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4890 OF 2006 November, 18, 2011 DSH.