THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5285 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed questioning the order, dated 20.07.2010, passed in CMA.No.11 of 2009 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Warangal, whereby the appeal was dismissed confirming the order dated 05.12.2008 passed in I.A.No.1412 of 2008 in O.S.No.748 of 2008 on the file of the II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.748 of 2008 on the file of the II- Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, filed for injunction simplicitor with regard to the suit schedule property, which is landed property. Pending the said suit, the petitioner filed interlocutory application in I.A.No.1412 of 2008 for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court, after considering the documentary evidence marked as Exs.P1 to P6 produced by the petitioner and after hearing both parties, dismissed the said I.A. by order dated 05.12.2008 holding that the petitioner failed to prove his prima facie possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal in C.M.A.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge at Warangal. Before the lower appellate Court, the petitioner produced adangal pahani for the year 2007-08 and the same is marked as Ex.A7/P7, and on behalf of the respondents, Exs.R1 to R3 are marked. The lower appellate Court, after detail consideration of the matter, dismissed the CMA by the impugned order dated 20.07.2010 confirming the order dated 05.12.2008 in I.A.No.1412 of 2008 passed by the II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of valid evidence on record, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court misconstrued the matter and dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned orders. A reading of the findings recorded in the impugned order would clearly show that the lower appellate Court relied on Exs.R1 to R3 that were produced by the respondents/defendants to show that they were in possession of the suit land as on the date of filing of the suit. Though the petitioner produced the documents under Exs.P1 to P6 before the trial Court, they do not reflect any entries with regard to his possession over the suit land as on the date of filing of the suit, as observed by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have viewed the matter in right perspective and the impugned orders do not call for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, since the suit is of 2008, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit in O.S.No.748 of 2008. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the learned II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.748 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today. No order as to costs. __________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 28.06.2011 v v