HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.5585 of 2008 Dated 6-8-2010 Between: Yaramaka Sunandamma. …Petitioner. And: Veluru Raja Rajeswari. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.5585 of 2008 ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S.No.466 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Potti Sreeramulu, Nellore dated 14- 11-2008 has questioned the decree granted in the said suit under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in this C.R.P. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff who states that the petitioner-plaintiff who is the mother-in-law of the respondent/defendant has sought injunction against her daughter-in-law restraining her from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule house. Learned counsel states that as per the evidence on record Ex.A.1 sale deed, petitioner/plaintiff is the purchaser of the suit schedule property and she being prima facie owner and possessor thereof, she is entitled to injunction. However, the respondent/defendant claims that the said suit schedule property actually belongs to the joint family and purchased out of joint family funds in the name of her mother-in-law the plaintiff. She is daughter-in-law claiming right to reside therein. But, the trial Court granted a decree directing the petitioner-plaintiff to pay the respondent-defendant an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards her maintenance. Learned Counsel states that such a claim is not maintainable against the petitioner-plaintiff who is mother-in- law of the respondent-defendant and at the most, the respondent- defendant ought to have taken up appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court against her husband. Nobody has appeared for the respondent-defendant though the office endorsement shows that the respondent-defendant is served. I am however not inclined to entertain this C.R.P. on merits in view of the fact that as against the decree for injunction impugned herein, an appeal lies under Section 96 C.P.C. and under A.P. Civil Courts Act 1972, the petitioner has to approach appropriate appellate Court. Thus a remedy of revision cannot be resorted to under Section 115 C.P.C., when an appeal lies against the decree. Even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the petitioner-plaintiff makes out a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, this Court could not entertain the revision. Since the suit in question is a suit for injunction, it cannot be said that there is any inherent lack of jurisdiction. In either view, therefore, the C.R.P. is not maintainable. However, as the respondent-defendant is not appearing in the C.R.P. and as there was an interim stay of the impugned decree granted by this Court on 18-12-2008 which is in operation even now, I deem it appropriate to dismiss the C.R.P. subject to giving liberty to the petitioner-plaintiff to move the appellate Court if he is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree. The office shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree filed in this C.R.P. to the petitioner-plaintiff to enable her to file an appeal accordingly before 30-9-2010. The office shall return certified copy of impugned judgment and decree within one week. The interim stay granted by this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No.7444 of 2008 dated 18-12-2008 shall continue till 30-9-2010. The petitioner-plaintiff is at liberty to move appropriate application for interim relief before the appellate Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 6-8-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.5585 of 2008 Dated 6-8-2010