IIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3355 OF 2009 Between: Goli Sri Ramulu …Petitioner A n d Pelluri Narasimha Rao ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3355 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 15-04-2009 A.T.A.No.5 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ongole, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed, confirming the order dated 09-02-2009 in I.A.No.1980 of 2007 in A.T.C.No.17 of 2007, on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein claims to be a cultivating tenant in respect of the schedule land. He filed A.T.C.No.17 of 2007 against the respondent to declare that he is the cultivating tenant and also for permanent injunction. In the said ATC, he filed I.A.No.1980 of 2007 for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The respondent filed counter opposing the application. 4. Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and Exs.R-1 to R-5 were marked on behalf of the respondent during enquiry. 5. After due enquiry, the learned Special Officer dismissed the said application observing that the petitioner failed to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as a tenant as on the date of filing the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in A.T.A.No.5 of 2009. The learned District Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders passed by the Special Officer observing that there is no material to show that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, much less as a cultivating tenant and, therefore, he is not entitled for temporary injunction sought for. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 6. It is stated that the original tenancy application A.T.C.No.17 of 2007 is still pending. The question as to whether or not the petitioner is a cultivating tenant of the schedule land as claimed by him and whether or not he is entitled for declaration and permanent injunction prayed for, are matters to be considered by the Special Officer after necessary evidence is adduced during the course of enquiry. Prima facie, based on the documentary evidence placed on record both the Courts below have recorded a finding that the petitioner is not entitled for temporary injunction. At this stage, it is considered unnecessary to go into the merits of the case and record a finding as to whether or not the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land as a cultivating tenant as claimed by him, in the present proceedings. Having regard to the fact that the ATC is pending since 2007, the learned Special Officer is directed to dispose of the same at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th March, 2011 Lrkm.